Exist~Dissolve

On Materialist Conceptions of Origins, Part Second, With Considerations of Human Language

2006-08-17T12:48:00.000-04:00

About 2 weeks ago, while checking out the portfolio of a random web design firm, I ran across the website of an organization that was offering a free DVD which they claimed provided “proof” that evolution is wrong and that creationism is right. Unable to resist, I quickly surrendered my email and mailing address, and within 2 weeks (wow, what service!) I received my free DVD. Brimming over with excitement, I quickly abandoned my evening with family and popped it in the DVD player. I cranked the speakers to 11, grabbed a stiff glass of Diet Coke (on the rocks), and curled into my oversized leather couch, my eyes and ears prepared for outstanding revelations.

It turned out, to my immediate dismay, that this DVD was of a lecture series delivered by Kent Hovind, better known as “Dr. Dino.” For those who are familiar with Hovind’s “arguments,” I need say little more. For those who are unfamiliar, imagine arguing with someone whose main line of debate is mischaracterizations, over-generalizations, and deflection through cheesy jokes, insults, and terrible clip-art-ridden power-point shows. Enough said.

As I watched and listened to the 129 minutes of Mr. Hovind’s lecture, some things became immediately clear:

1.) He offered no actual “scientific” proof for his claims, even though the claim of the video was exactly this.

2.) The entire discussion was based upon an attempt to characterize cosmological and biological theories of evolution as atheistic, humanistic propaganda.

3.) The main lines of his arguments revolved around trying to make evolutionists look foolish. However, in doing so, he did not interact with any critical, scholarly material, but rather based his discussion upon popular notions of evolutionary theory, outdated 2nd grade biology textbooks, and other insignificant sources.

4.) Similar to no. 1, at no time did Hovan offer a critical theory that would explain an alternative perspective for origins. Basically, his argument boiled down to, “The KJV Bible says this, I have to interpret it according certain hermeneutical paradigms, and that’s the end of the story.”

ANYWAY...I do not wish to devote this post to all of the horrible misrepresentations, inaccuracies, etc. of Hovind’s lectures, nor of his methodology. Rather, I would like to focus on a very interesting comment that he made. Noting this comment, I would like to revisit some of the considerations I pursued in my previous post on Materialist Conceptions of Origins, as well as tie in some of the thinking I have been doing in regard to considerations of human language in speaking about the divine. So without further ado....

Let me set the stage: Hovind was relating a story of a time when he conversed with a Berkeley professor during a plane ride. In this conversation, Hovind questioned the professor on several issues relating to evolution, and boastingly related that the professor was unable to sufficiently answer the questions. One question in particular grabbed my attention. Hovind questioned the professor as to the origin of the universe. Not surprisingly, the professor suggested that all matter and energy in the universe could be reduced, chronologically, to a singularity, an infinitely small and dense point. Undeterred, Hovind pressed further and asked, “So where did the singularity [universe] come from?” Unable to respond, Hovind offered that all matter and energy [universe] came from God in precisely the way that the book of Genesis relates (according to his interpretive paradigm of this passage, that is).

I would like to focus on this phrase, “Where did the universe come from?” According to Hovind, the fact that the big bang cosmologist cannot successfully answer this question overturns big bang cosmology, or, at the very least, requires that the big bang adherent posit the eternal existence of the universe, which would, of course, suggest a thoroughgoing materialist cosmology. Furthermore, Hovind asserts that because the universe has to come from “somewhere,” the only reasonable answer can be that it came “from God.”

Although he would vehemently deny it, I would assert that Hovind’s offering succombs to exactly the same criticism (of materialism), at least if one outlines his cosmology on the basis of his line of questioning outline above.

Let’s examine his question:

“Where did the universe come from?”

Although this seems to be a reasonably straightforward question, the linguistic structuring of this question mitigates against it technically adhering to a Christian cosmology.

But first, consider this: Christians affirm the ex nihilo, “out of nothingness,” origin of all that exists and which is "other than" God. In light of this, a Christian cosmology specifically denies any conception that the universe is uncreated and eternal (per Aristotle and most cosmological assumptions until the last 200 years). The universe did not exist as chaos that was organized by God, nor was it a soup of eternally existing matter that was arranged in particular structures. The “nothingness” out of which creation was created does not have ontological existence, as if it is simply “empty space” (for “space” is not really “empty”). Additionally, a Christian cosmology rejects that creation is merely an emanation of the being of God. Rather, the universe really is “other” than God, even though its existence and preservation is dependent upon God.

Now, back to the question:

“Where did the universe come from?”

If we affirm a Christian cosmology of creation ex nihilo, this question is perspicuously contradictory. Consider the word “where.” By utilizing the normal understanding of the word “where,” one is referring to a spatial reality. For example, if I ask, “Where is the pencil,” one’s answer will have a proximal value as its referential, i.e., "the pencil is on the desk." Even if one responds with an admission of ignorance (“I don’t know where the pencil is"), this is still a proximally qualified answer, for one is not denying the existence of the pencil in its location, but rather merely knowledge of what this location might be. And even a denial of the existence of the pencil is proximally qualified, for the "not-anywhere-ness" of the pencil is necessarily referential to the "where-ness" of that context in which the pencil does not exist.

If we apply these considerations to the question posed by Hovind, we see how a materialist conception of the origins of the universe comes into play. After all, if we affirm that the universe (matter and energy) came “from somewhere,” we must posit the existence of another reality that is commensurate with the nature of the universe wherein it is appropriate that the latter should come from the former. In that referring to this reality as “God” would violate the Christian cosmological principle of creation ex nihilo, one is merely moving the origin of the universe back to another material reality from which the known universe originated.

Let me get at this another way. If one says that the universe came “from God,” one is speaking on the level of space/time. As already noted, in order to determine the “whereness” and “fromness” of a particular reality (whether it be a pencil, a refrigerator, an abstract thought, or even a non-existent object [which is categorically impossible, linguistically]), one must appeal to the spatial/temporal context in which these realities occur. But if we say that creation came “from God,” we are doing the unthinkable. By delineating the origin and mechanism of creation on the basis of spatial referents (“where,” “from”), we are expanding the spatial/temporal context of creation upon the divine and eternal nature of God. Therefore, in saying this very simple phrase, "the universe came from God," we are philosophically operating under the assumption that not only are the parameters of space/time the proper paradigm through which to describe the origin and mechanism of God’s relationship to the creation, but we are actually positing the existence of these paradigms over and against the existence of God, requiring that the infinite and eternal God operate within these parameters (which conclusion, obviously, negates the actuality of God’s infinitude and eternality).

With these considerations in mind, I realize that very few people–-and probably no one, actually—when they respond to the question, “Where did the universe come from” with the answer, “God,” consciously affirm the conclusions I have outlined above. However, this is not my point. What I am getting at is the way in which our language lies to us, often without anyone actually realizing it, revealing unconscious philosophical presuppositions that, if explicitly stated, we would vehemently eschew. As with Hovind, he obviously detests a “naturalistic” explanation of the origin of the universe. However, given the language which he deploys, and coupled with his insistence upon the mechanisms of creation mentioned in Genesis (which are themselves naturalistic), his conclusions are hardly different in consequence from those which he rejects (other than being unrelated to any of the naturalistic evidence that is available).

Conclusion

It is difficult to conclude this kind of examination, for the issue—contrary to what human nature desires—cannot be definitively resolved. Regardless of what mechanisms we use to describe the origins of the universe, the earth, or ourselves, our language will consistently force us into speaking in terms of spatiality/temporality, and our speech will be riddled with contingent, causally demarcated words and phrases. Therefore, we must always use caution in how we utilize language about God and the relationship between the divine being and that which is created and “other.”

Specifically, I would propose that the question, “Where did the universe come from,” is unanswerable, both for the big bang cosmologist and the creationist. Human language is simply incapable of describing creation ex nihilo in a propositional way that will avoid running aground
on the rocks of materialism that I have described above.

Should we then simply leave off talking about "origins" completely? No, I do not suggest that we should. Rather, we should simply hold to faith-affirmation of the power and creativity of the divine Creator. While this runs contrary to the desire of human nature to identify a material source and cause for creation, mystery is better than blasphemy. Moreover, we should honestly and actively engage our senses in the universe in which we live. If we conclude that evolutionary theory best describes the way in which our universe developed, let us rejoice in it. As God’s creative activity in the universe cannot be reduced or located within any particular set of causal mechanisms, the field is wide open and all bets are off as to "how" the creative work of God can be displayed (as if the conclusion were up to us to begin with) within the universe in which we live.

Human Language and the Divine

2006-08-10T15:42:00.000-04:00

Over the last several months–and especially within the last few days–I have been involved in numerous conversations about the nature and function of human language in describing God. What follows is not meant to be a fully-developed essay, but is rather intended to be somewhat of a summary of the lines of thinking I have pursued and the very tentative conclusions which I have reached.

Obviously, one of the most prescient issues is to what extent one can affirm that human language is capable of literally expressing and/or encapsulating truth about the nature of God. The initial, and I believe correct, answer is that human language is insufficient to do this. After all, we are speaking about a finite medium (human language) through which we attempt to speak about that which is infinite. To use a material example, such would be like the proverbial two-dimensional Flatlander attempting to shake the hand of the three-dimensional invader of the two-dimensional plane. While the Flatlander may be able to intersect a two-dimensional cross-section of the three-dimensional visitor, the Flatlander will be, by virtue of his “difference,” incapable of fully engaging or encapsulating the reality of his new higher-dimensional friend. In a similar and more profound way, it is not possible that human language could somehow directly and fully engage the reality of the divine.

Despite this obvious conclusion, we persist in the attempt. Our language en toto, but also (and more) specifically in relation to the divine, is filled with propositional, absolutized words, phrases and linguistic expressions. This is, in actuality, unavoidable. After all, language, by its very nature, is absolutizing. To speak is to form and reflect some conception of the world. While the appropriateness of the linguistic symbols attached to the meanings being expressed may be questioned, it is clear that to speak is to construct; to speak is to make a declaration about the nature and meaning of the reality which one perceives.

The problem with the necessity of this functional reality in human language is that human language is necessarily self-referential. In the act of speaking, the content of language is rooted in that which we know. We cannot speak of that which we do not know, and that which we do know determines the shape and form of our language. An interesting example of this is Anselm’s “proof” for the existence of God. While the full argument will not be pursued here, the basic thrust of Anselm’s argument is that God is the “being than which no greater being can be conceived.” In essence, Anselm argument is two-fold: Humans have an idea of a perfect being–God. Concomitantly, human beings are not perfect. Therefore, to Anselm, the fact that finite, imperfect humans have a conception of a perfect being lends evidence to the fact that this perfect being–God–does, in fact, exist.

As history relates, Anselm’s argument was quickly dismantled by his antagonists. Guanilo, for example, mocked Anselm’s theory by using the example of “the perfect island,” asserting that the mere imagining of a “perfect island” by no means necessitates or proves its existence. However, what both Anselm and Guanilo miss is that it is the function and nature of human language—not the limitations of human epistemology—which renders Anselm’s argument moot.

Consider Anselm’s statement about God: “God is the being than whom no greater being can be imagined.” The beginning problem with such a proposition is that its very criterion is dependent upon human language. Determining the attributes of “greatest of all beings” requires an appeal to human descriptive language, and the greatness of God is delineated on the basis of these stated attributes. However, how does human language gain access to these attributes? Again, the very categorizing of properly “divine” attributes is dependent upon the absolutizing of human language about, suprise suprise!, human attributes. In this sense, the language by which one describes God is not truly reflective of the divine nature in an absolute sense, but is merely the infinitized form of human language about human experience. In such a scenario, God, at best, is the “biggest human,” or, at worst, has an existence dependent upon human consciousness.

The obvious dilemma that this creates is that propositionalizing about God necessitates a functional, if not actual, affirmation of the eternality of that which is “other” than God. After all, if God is said to be “such and such” litany of attributes that are merely the infinitized and absolutized versions of human attributes, there is no possible way in which to speak about God apart from that which God is affirmed to have created. In this sense, the Creator is dependent upon the creation, if nothing else, to simply exist within human language.

Another more generic example would be the biblical language of “God is love.” The truthfulness of this statement is not disputed by many, and any objections would not be to the linguistic construction of the statement, but would rather proceed along the lines of arguing that God is “x” other than “love.” However, if we look at the utilization of the language in this propositional statement, the anthropologically absolutizing nature of human language is seen to be deviously present. If one says, “God is love,” the presence of the qualifier “is” represents that a comparison is being made---the nature of “God” is delineated by the qualifier “love.” Alternatively, the phraseology of the statement could be just as accurately deployed as follows: “God exhibits all those characteristics and/or is composed (in nature) in such a way that God can be said to be equivalent, or wholly like unto the characteristics and/or composition (in nature) of love.”

Do we see what has happened in this statement, however? In the attempt to propositionalize about God, we have alternatively asserted that there is something to which God can be compared. But by necessity, if there is something by which the character of God can be adjudicated, we must naturally conclude that this qualifier is independent in nature from God and/or greater than or equal to God such that it is appropriate that God be likened unto “x.” In the case of the propositional statement, “God is love,” our linguistic construction, if literalized, affirms that this category of “love” is conceived to exist in such a way that it can be taken independently of God, and that God may be spoken of as fulfilling, in nature, the particular characteristics which would create the propriety of equating God with the property of love.

The above is said not for the intention of evacuating all meaning from phrases such as “God is love.” On a practical, functional level, it would seem apparent that the affirmation of “God is love” is not meant to convey that God is equal in nature (and substance?) to an independent property such as “love.” Rather, the phrase is deployed simply as a description–i.e., we have a notion of “love” and conceptualize God to be the height and, in fact, source of the same.

At the same time, however, this brief examination of human language in relation to the divine does highlight an important consideration: that is, we must always use extreme caution in how definitively and propositionally we affirm human language to encapsulate or even represent truth-statements about the divine nature. As our language will always fall short, simply by virtue of its finitude and anthropocentric nature, we cannot uncritically deploy language about the divine while concomitantly assuming that we have spoken something absolute or truth-encapsulating.

Conclusion

If the above-referenced lines of thinking are reasonable, how then should we pursue language about the divine? In closing, I would offer two suggestions.

1.) Our language must allow that God has existence apart from human language and experience. While this may seem like a foregone conclusion, the ways in which we deploy language about the divine often betrays this fact. If our language, and subsequent theologizing, cannot rise above (or below, as it may be) the tendency to resolve the divine upon the altars of linguistic absolutization and propositionalizing, we will forever speak only of ourselves; God will be merely a linguistic category that contains the trumped up self-evaluation of the human ego.

2.) Counter-intuitively enough, I believe the first suggestion is resolved in the second, that is, that our language of the divine must be thoroughly Christological. As Christians affirm, Christ, the eternal Logos of God as Incarnate in the person of Jesus, is the self-revelation of God. Yet interestingly enough, this self-revelation of the divine occurs on the level of human finitude, a level of messiness, imprecision, and contradictoriness. While the Incarnate nature of God’s self-revelation will certainly heighten the temptation for anthropologically exclusive language about the divine, it will also, if pursued circumspectly, mitigate significantly against the same, for any “sure” propositionalizing about the divine, eternal nature will require consideration of a bloody cross.

Before letting off, I must extend my thanks to Tim for spurring some of these ideas in my brain. For some interesting posts that he has made on these issues, see this post, as well as this one.

Tagged Book List

2006-08-06T14:03:00.000-04:00

Okay, I've recently been "tagged" to reveal a book list. Here it is. I am also tagging 5 others (listed at the bottom). Do it now.

1. One book that changed your life :
Fear and Trembling, by Soren Kierkegaard

2. One book you've read more than once:
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams

3. One book you'd want on a deserted island:
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, by Susanna Clarke

4. One book that made you laugh:
The Attributes of God, by A.W. Pink

5. One book that made you cry (or feel really sad):
Where the Red Fern Grows, by Wilson Rowes

6. One book that you wish had been written:
Harry Potter: The Horcrux of Time [Book 7], by J.K. Rowling (It’s taking FOREVER for the seventh and last book to come out!!!)

7. One book that you wish had never been written:
None. I’m glad for every book that’s been written. Better that books be written than not.

8. One book you're currently reading:
The Poe Shadow, by Matthew Pearl

9. One book you've been meaning to read:
Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments, by Soren Kierkegaard

Okay. Here's my tagged 5, now 6:

deviant monk

mofast manna

nathan crawford

fides cogitat

benrambling

biblio baggins

God of the Feminine - Reflections on Genesis 1:26-27

2006-08-03T17:04:00.000-04:00

As I have been studying the numerous connections between the structures and themes within the Hebrew Scriptures and other ancient Near Eastern literature, I have been particularly drawn towards the correlations between the respective creation stories. Although the Genesis text is by far the most popular creation text, there are numerous others that share very similar features that presumably influenced the final form of the Genesis text. One interesting feature of the creation-epic literature of the ancient Near East is the dual role of masculine and feminine divine figures in the act of creation. In numerous stories, gendered gods and goddesses are utilized to describe the unique way in which the creation came to be.

As I have been reflecting upon the significance of the identification of the masculine and feminine in the ANE creation stories, an interesting thought occurred to me: perhaps this male/female connection exists within the biblical text as well. The primary candidate for such a consideration, I believe, is Genesis 1:26-27:

“Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

The most immediately apparent feature of the Genesis narrative is that God is pictured—in opposition to many other ANE creation accounts—as a solitary creator. However, when one gets to verse 26, the solitariness is suddenly fractured as God uses the self-referential “Us.”

Growing up, I was taught the “classic” interpretative approaches to explain this “plurality” in the identity of God. They are as follows:

1.) This is a sort of Old Testament Trinitarian revelation: While a popular notion amongst Christians, such an interpretation would seem to make little sense to the Hebrews who were attempting—through the very nature of this creation account—to counter the polytheistic creation epics of the surrounding nations.

2.) The use of the plural is a form of “royal” address; i.e., kings often refer to themselves in the plural in official pronouncements, correspondence, laws, etc.: A better option than 1.), it is odd that this is the singular occurrence of such self-reference.

3.) The use of the plural “us” is God speaking to the angelic host: Probably better than 1.) and 2.), this theory seems to cohere somewhat with the testimony in Psalms that humanity has been made “a little lower” than the angels. However, as with 1.), there does seem to be a distinct danger of presenting a polytheistic conception of the manner of creation, as if the angels are somehow co-creators with the one God.

While I do not presume to be able to rebut any one of the three options presented above, I would like to suggest a fourth alternative, which follows below.

As noted in the opening paragraph, many of ANE creation epics utilized both male and female divine beings in the acts of creation. Rather than simply reflecting the make-up of the various pantheons of ancient thought, the inclusion of both the male and female deities had a very intense theological purpose. After all, by describing the creation of all from the creative works of the masculine and feminine, the ancients had a coherent and comprehensive means of describing both the differences and value of both the masculine and the feminine in relation to human personhood. In short, these stories were not simply fantastic mythology that meant to entertain; rather, the stories reflected the people’s thinking about the very depths of personhood, and what it means to be gendered. While some may scoff at the way in which the ancients provided answers to these very existential questions, it is obvious that these stories communicated a very real and meaningful set of ideas about the nature, value and function of human gender and sexuality.

If we keep these considerations in mind, we must conclude that these same needs to communicate belief and instruction about the origin, nature and function of human sexuality and gender were prescient for the writers of the biblical creation stories.

It is upon this basis that I would suggest an alternative interpretation of Genesis 1:26. Could it be that the “us” of verse 26 does not refer to the Triune nature of God, a royal proclamation, or a conversation with the angelic host? Could it be that the divine “us” of 26 is a metaphorical recasting of the divine person as masculine and feminine? While this conclusion might seem somewhat odd at first glance, verse 27 brings it into focus. This verse affirms that both “male and female” are created in the divine image. If this is indeed true, could not the “us” of 26 refer to the metaphorical masculinity and femininity of the divine in whose image the human couple is created?

In response, one might argue that such a separation is susceptible to the same charges of polytheism to which option 1.) appears to be prone. I do not think this is necessary, however, for the narratival positing of masculinity and femininity in the nature of God need not be substantival for the writers of the Hebrew narrative. Rather, even as the male and female humans are ultimately created to become “one flesh” (2:24), so also are the masculine and feminine in the divine the “one God.” And even as the two-ness of human creation is reflective of the one divine nature, so the one divine Creator’s image is self-referential for the two-made-one-ness of the male and the female creation.

If this interpretation is reasonably close to the author’s intention, I think it is a stroke of genius on the writer’s behalf. After all, in maintaining the solitariness of Yahweh as Creator, the writer has completely overturned the polytheism of similar creation epics, infusing the Hebrew narrative with a radical and audacious claim about the particularity of the identity of true God over and against the pantheons of the gods and goddesses of the surrounding nations. Moreover, the writer has managed to retain the crucially important existential issues about the origin, nature and function of human sexuality and gender. Yet he has done so without resorting to compartmentalizing gender within the identity of particular deific figures; rather, in a brilliant literary stroke, the author has revealed that Yahweh, the true God who is one, encapsulates human gender in such a way that particularity can exist while concomitantly affirming the identically primal source of gender and existence in the life of Yahweh. In this way, the writer affirms that not only does Yahweh encapsulate human sexuality and gender, but moreover Yahweh transcends the limitations of both, for Yahweh cannot be reduced to or identified with one or the other. Rather, Yahweh is the source of both; the divine image, free and unbounded, in reflected in the diversity of both the masculine and the feminine.

Calvinism, a Syllogism, and the Origin of Evil

2006-08-02T12:34:00.000-04:00

Those who affirm the canons of Calvinistic philosophy often laud the “logical” coherence of its systematic formulation. In this post, I would like to turn the tables on this methodological assumption, showing how Calvinistic philosophy, while perhaps “logical,” leads to a horribly perverse image of the divine nature and will of God. I shall do this through a syllogistic form and shall concentrate upon the origin of evil.

A: God has eternally decreed all that comes to pass.
B: That which God decrees proceeds from the free and boundless will of God.
C: The will of God is essential with God’s being.

Proposition: Evil exists.

Therefore:

A: Because God has eternally decreed that evil should exist, or come to pass:
B: Because the existence and perpetuity of evil proceeds from the free and boundless will of God.
C: Because the will of God is essential with God’s being;
D: It is logically concluded that evil is essential with the being of God.

In response, I suspect a couple different approaches may (and will) be taken. I assume many will argue with the relationship between “will” and “being.” Note that I have carefully qualified the language: “essential with.” I think this prevents a bifurcating of will and being, while also avoiding conflating them en toto.

With that caveat, some may object that the syllogism doesn’t stand because it is based upon a pejorative argument; i.e., if “evil exists” were replaced with the less negative “humans exist,” perhaps the syllogism would fall. While I considered this in my statement of the syllogism, I eventually decided to proceed, for my issue with Calvinistic philosophy is not limited to its inadequate accounting for the existence of evil, but more importantly is directed against the concept of “eternal decrees” altogether. I think the entire notion of eternal decrees is philosophically untenable not only in reference to origin of evil, but also in relation to everything else that is not “God.” In other words, replacing “evil” with “puppies” creates just as horrid of a picture of God, for puppies are no more essential to the nature of God than is evil. When speaking of God, we must avoid an all-too-easy anthropological reductionism. That is, we must allow for the reality that God’s existence is not dependant upon nor qualified by God’s relationship to creation. While this may be difficult or perhaps even impossible to express through human language (which is, by default, anthropologically qualified at every level), we must resist capitulating our conception of the eternality of God to the limitations of our means of expressing it. This is, in my opinion, where Calvinistic philosophy fundamentally fails, for it makes that which should be metaphorical and mysterious into rigid propositional statements and affirmations. By doing so, however, Calvinism has adopted a thoroughly human-centric approach to speaking about God, one which necessarily makes that which God has ordained intrinsically essential to the very being and nature of God.

Erasmus on James

2006-08-02T08:53:00.000-04:00

As most students of historical theology will note, Erasmus has often been ignored within Protestant theological study because of Luther's fierce polemics against him. Despite this neglect, I think Erasmus has some very interesting insights into the nature of faith. I recently ran across this excerpt from Erasmus’ Paraphrase of the New Testament. This selection, from the book of James, powerfully captures the intimate and indivisible nature of faith and action.

But what is faith without love? Love moreover is a living thing; it does not go on holiday; it is not idle; it expresses itself in kind acts wherever it is present. If these acts are lacking, my brothers, I ask you, will the empty word “faith” save a person? Faith which does not work through love is unproductive; no, it is faith in name only. An example here will make clear what I mean. If someone says blandly to a brother or a sister who lacks clothing or daily food, “Depart in peace, keep warm, and remember to eat well,” and after saying this, gives him or her none of the things the body needs, will his fine talk be of any use to the ones in need? They will be no less cold and hungry for all his fine talk, which is of no help to their need. He gives them only verbal support, but does nothing in actual fact. A profession of faith will certainly be equally useless if it consists only of words and does nothing except remain inactive as though dead. It should no more be called faith than a human corpse merits the name of human being. Love is to faith what the soul is to the body. Take away love and the word faith is like something dead and inert. It will do you no more good before God to confess in words an idle faith than fine speech benefits a neighbor in need when he must be helped with action. People think they are being mocked when you say to them, “Keep warm and well fed,” and give them neither food nor clothing. Just so, the person who offers no tangible proofs of his faith but repeats every day, “I believe in God, I believe in God,” seems to be mocking God. A person who gives lip-service to love possesses a fruitless charity. In the same way a person whose belief is only a matter of words possesses a faith that serves no purpose.

Quotation from Achtemeier, Paul J., Joel B. Green, and Marianne Meye Thompson, Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Message. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 2001, p. 510.

More Correlations Between the Hebrew Scriptures and Ancient Near-Eastern Literature

2006-07-20T23:12:00.000-04:00

Continuing in my research concerning the parallels between Hebrew and other ancient Near Eastern writing, I would like to share some additional interesting correlations in some of the texts. In the following, I have quoted, at length, the various texts under considerations. At the end of each section is a concluding discussion about similarities. I would point the reader in the direction of these if they do not wish to read the cited texts at length.

The Birth of Moses and The Sargon Legend:

The Birth of Moses

Now a man from the house of Levi went and married a daughter of Levi. The woman conceived and bore a son; and when she saw that he was beautiful, she hid him for three months. But when she could hide him no longer, she got him a wicker basket and covered it over with tar and pitch Then she put the child into it and set it among the reeds by the bank of the Nile. His sister stood at a distance to find out what would happen to him. The daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the Nile, with her maidens walking alongside the Nile; and she saw the basket among the reeds and sent her maid, and she brought it to her. When she opened it, she saw the child, and behold, the boy was crying. And she had pity on him and said, "This is one of the Hebrews' children." Then his sister said to Pharaoh's daughter, "Shall I go and call a nurse for you from the Hebrew women that she may nurse the child for you?" Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go ahead." So the girl went and called the child's mother. Then Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Take this child away and nurse him for me and I will give you your wages." So the woman took the child and nursed him.

(Exodus 2:1-9 NASB)

The Sargon Legend

Sargon, strong king, king of Agade, am I. My mother was a high priestess, my father I do not know. My paternal kin inhabit the mountain region. My city (of birth) is Azupiranu, which lies on the bank of the Euphrates. My mother, a high priestess, conceived me, in secret she bore me. She placed me in a reed basket, with bitumen she caulked my hatch. She abandoned me to the river from which I could not escape. The river carried me along: to Aqqi, the water drawer, it brought me. Aqqi, the water drawer, when immersing his bucket lifted me up. Aqqi, the water drawer, raised me as his adopted son. Aqqi, the water drawer, set me to his garden work. During my garden work, Istar loved me (so that) 55 years I ruled as king.

(Brian Lewis, The Sargon Legend (American Schools of Oriental Research, 1978)

Observations:

Obviously, there are many differences between the texts. One of the most apparent is the identity of the rescuer of the water-bound infant boys. In Moses' story, the savior is Pharoah's daughter, while Sargon is rescued by Aqqi, the water bearer.

Though there are differences, there are also many very conspicuous similarities.

1.) Both mothers are identified with the priestly class. Sargon's mother is identified as the "highpriestess," while Moses' mother is a "dauther of Levi" (who will later become the priestly class).

2.) Both mothers raise their sons in secret, later to abandon them to the water.

3.) Both texts make explicit reference to the means used to secure the baskets for travel upon the waters. Despite conjecture about the possibility of "exposure," it seems more likely that such detailed preparation would be intended for the survival, not disposal, of the child.

4.) Both texts culminate with royal implications. In the Birth of Moses, Moses is raised in the royal palace, while Sargon is identified as becoming king and reigning for 55 years.

Creation Epics:

As scholars have long known, there are numerous correlations between the Hebrew creation epics and earlier Near-Eastern creation mythology. Consider the following:

The Assur Bilingual Creation Story

The holy house, the house of the gods in the holy place had not yet bene made.
No reed had sprung up, not tree had been made.
No brick had been laid, no structure of brick had been erected.
No house had been made, no city had been built.
No city had been made, no creature had been constituted.
Enlil’s city (i.e., Nippur) had not been made, Ekur had not been built.
Erech had not been made, E-Anna had not been built.
The Deep (or Abyss) had not been made, Eridu had not been built.
Of the holy house, the house of the gods, the dwelling-place had not been made.
All the lands were sea.
At the time that the mid-most sea was [shaped like] a trough,
At that time Eridu was made, and E-sagil was built.
The E-sagil, where in thd midst of the Deep the god Lugal-dul-azaga dwelleth.
Babylon was made, E-sagil was completed.
The gods the Anunnaki he created at one time.
They proclaimed supreme the holy city, the dwelling of their heart’s happiness.
Marduk laid a rush mat upon the face of the waters.
He mixed up earth and moulded it upon the rush mat,
To enable the gods to dwell in the place where they would fain be
He fashioned man
The goddess Aruru with him created the seed of mankind
He created the beasts of the field and [all] the living things in the field.
He created the river Idiglat (Tigris) and the river Purattu (Euphrates), and he set them in their places,
He proclaimed their names rightly.
He created grass, the vegetation of the march, seed and shrub;
He created the green plants of the plain,
Lands, marshes swamps,
The wild cow and the calf she carried, the wild calf, the sheep and the young she carried, the lamb of the fold,
Plantations and shrub land,
The he-goat and the mountain goat...
The lord Marduk piled up a dam in the region of the sea (i.e., he reclaimed land)
He...a swamp, he founded a marsh.
...he made to be.
Reeds he created, trees he created,
...in place he created
He laid bricks, he built a brick-work,
He constructed houses, he formed cities.
He constructed cities, creatures he set [therein].
Nippur he made, E-Kur he built.
[Erech he mad, E-Anna] he built.

Genesis 1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."
So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.
God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.
God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the landthat bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.
The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,
and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.
God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,
to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."
And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and femalehe created them.
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Correlations:

As seen, there are several very interesting correlations between these two creation epics. A few of the similarities are as follows:

1.) In both epics, the original state of the universe is characterized as “empty” (“without form, void” [Genesis], lack of “building” [Assur]), except for the abundance of waters (Assur 10, Genesis 1:2).

2.) Both epics make reference to the existence of “The Deep” [Abyss] (Assur 8, Genesis 1:2)

3.) In each of the original creations, the drama unfolds near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

4.) In both accounts, “earth” is considered a “breaking” of the waters; in Genesis, the waters are “gathered” and dry ground appears, while is Assur, ground is built upon a “rush mat” that has been placed upon the waters. In each case, water is the primaeval substance that is somehow manipulated to account for the presence of land.

5.) Both epics recount the creation of “celestial bodies” (the sun, moon and stars in Genesis and the various gods and goddesses of the pantheon in Assur).

6.) Each account have an interesting order of creation of living things: Assur proceeds human–animal–plant, while Genesis inverts this order, plant–animal–human.

7.) There is also a potential correlation in the dual-deity creation of humanity. In Assur, Marduk and the goddess Aruru combine powers to create humanity. While Yahweh in Genesis is alone, there is an interesting exchange in the creation of humanity when Yahweh proclaims, “Let us,” using a plural pronoun to refer to the creative activity. Moreover, the creation of the male and female in the “image of God” could suggest an allusion to the feminine.

Flood Myths:

The Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI

The hearts of the Great Gods moved them to inflict the Flood.
Their Father Anu uttered the oath (of secrecy),
Valiant Enlil was their Adviser,
Ninurta was their Chamberlain,
Ennugi was their Minister of Canals.
Ea, the Clever Prince(?), was under oath with them
so he repeated their talk to the reed house:
'Reed house, reed house! Wall, wall!
O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:
Tear down the house and build a boat!
Abandon wealth and seek living beings!
Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings!
Make all living beings go up into the boat.
The boat which you are to build,
its dimensions must measure equal to each other:
its length must correspond to its width.
Roof it over like the Apsu.
I understood and spoke to my lord, Ea:
'My lord, thus is the command which you have uttered
I will heed and will do it.
But what shall I answer the city, the populace, and the Elders!'
Ea spoke, commanding me, his servant:
'You, well then, this is what you must say to them:
"It appears that Enlil is rejecting me
so I cannot reside in your city (?),
nor set foot on Enlil's earth.
I will go down to the Apsu to live with my lord, Ea,
and upon you he will rain down abundance,
a profusion of fowl, myriad(!) fishes.
He will bring to you a harvest of wealth,
in the morning he will let loaves of bread shower down,
and in the evening a rain of wheat!"'
Just as dawn began to glow
the land assembled around me-
the carpenter carried his hatchet,
the reed worker carried his (flattening) stone,
... the men ...
The child carried the pitch,
the weak brought whatever else was needed.
On the fifth day I laid out her exterior.
It was a field in area,
its walls were each 10 times 12 cubits in height,
the sides of its top were of equal length, 10 times It cubits each.
I laid out its (interior) structure and drew a picture of it (?).
I provided it with six decks,
thus dividing it into seven (levels).
The inside of it I divided into nine (compartments).
I drove plugs (to keep out) water in its middle part.
I saw to the punting poles and laid in what was necessary.
Three times 3,600 (units) of raw bitumen I poured into the bitumen kiln,
three times 3,600 (units of) pitch ...into it,
there were three times 3,600 porters of casks who carried (vegetable) oil,
apart from the 3,600 (units of) oil which they consumed (!)
and two times 3,600 (units of) oil which the boatman stored away.
I butchered oxen for the meat(!),
and day upon day I slaughtered sheep.
I gave the workmen(?) ale, beer, oil, and wine, as if it were river water,
so they could make a party like the New Year's Festival.
... and I set my hand to the oiling(!).
The boat was finished by sunset.
The launching was very difficult.
They had to keep carrying a runway of poles front to back,
until two-thirds of it had gone into the water(?).
Whatever I had I loaded on it:
whatever silver I had I loaded on it,
whatever gold I had I loaded on it.
All the living beings that I had I loaded on it,
I had all my kith and kin go up into the boat,
all the beasts and animals of the field and the craftsmen I had go up.
Shamash had set a stated time:
'In the morning I will let loaves of bread shower down,
and in the evening a rain of wheat!
Go inside the boat, seal the entry!'
That stated time had arrived.
In the morning he let loaves of bread shower down,
and in the evening a rain of wheat.
I watched the appearance of the weather--
the weather was frightful to behold!
I went into the boat and sealed the entry.
For the caulking of the boat, to Puzuramurri, the boatman,
I gave the palace together with its contents.
Just as dawn began to glow
there arose from the horizon a black cloud.
Adad rumbled inside of it,
before him went Shullat and Hanish,
heralds going over mountain and land.
Erragal pulled out the mooring poles,
forth went Ninurta and made the dikes overflow.
The Anunnaki lifted up the torches,
setting the land ablaze with their flare.
Stunned shock over Adad's deeds overtook the heavens,
and turned to blackness all that had been light.
The... land shattered like a... pot.
All day long the South Wind blew ...,
blowing fast, submerging the mountain in water,
overwhelming the people like an attack.
No one could see his fellow,
they could not recognize each other in the torrent.
The gods were frightened by the Flood,
and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu.
The gods were cowering like dogs, crouching by the outer wall.
Ishtar shrieked like a woman in childbirth,
the sweet-voiced Mistress of the Gods wailed:
'The olden days have alas turned to clay,
because I said evil things in the Assembly of the Gods!
How could I say evil things in the Assembly of the Gods,
ordering a catastrophe to destroy my people!!
No sooner have I given birth to my dear people
than they fill the sea like so many fish!'
The gods--those of the Anunnaki--were weeping with her,
the gods humbly sat weeping, sobbing with grief(?),
their lips burning, parched with thirst.
Six days and seven nights
came the wind and flood, the storm flattening the land.
When the seventh day arrived, the storm was pounding,
the flood was a war--struggling with itself like a woman writhing (in labor).
The sea calmed, fell still, the whirlwind (and) flood stopped up.
I looked around all day long--quiet had set in
and all the human beings had turned to clay!
The terrain was as flat as a roof.
I opened a vent and fresh air (daylight!) fell upon the side of my nose.
I fell to my knees and sat weeping,
tears streaming down the side of my nose.
I looked around for coastlines in the expanse of the sea,
and at twelve leagues there emerged a region (of land).
On Mt. Nimush the boat lodged firm,
Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway.
One day and a second Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway.
A third day, a fourth, Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway.
A fifth day, a sixth, Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway.
When a seventh day arrived
I sent forth a dove and released it.
The dove went off, but came back to me;
no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
I sent forth a swallow and released it.
The swallow went off, but came back to me;
no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
I sent forth a raven and released it.
The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back.
It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me.
Then I sent out everything in all directions and sacrificed (a sheep).
I offered incense in front of the mountain-ziggurat.
Seven and seven cult vessels I put in place,
and (into the fire) underneath (or: into their bowls) I poured reeds, cedar, and myrtle.
The gods smelled the savor,
the gods smelled the sweet savor,
and collected like flies over a (sheep) sacrifice.
Just then Beletili arrived.
She lifted up the large flies (beads) which Anu had made for his enjoyment(!):
'You gods, as surely as I shall not forget this lapis lazuli around my neck,
may I be mindful of these days, and never forget them

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm

Genesis 6:9-8:22; 9:12-17*

The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."
But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.
Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence.
God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.
So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
So make yourself an ark of cypress [c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out.
This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. [d]
Make a roof for it and finish [e] the ark to within 18 inches [f] of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks.
I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you.
You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.
Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.
You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
Noah did everything just as God commanded him.
The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.
Take with you seven [a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,
and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
And Noah did all that the LORD commanded him.
Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth.
And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood.
Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground,
male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.
And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark.
They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings.
Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark.
The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth.
The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.
They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.
The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [b] , [c]
Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.
Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.
Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded.
Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky.
The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down,
and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark
and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth.
Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground.
But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark.
He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark.
When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.
He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him.
By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry.
By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.
Then God said to Noah,
"Come out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and their wives.
Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you—the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground—so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number upon it."
So Noah came out, together with his sons and his wife and his sons' wives.
All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds—everything that moves on the earth—came out of the ark, one kind after another.
Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.
The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
"As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."
And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come:
I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.
Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds,
I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.
Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."
So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth."

* I have numbered these lines as a single text for ease of citation below.

Correlations:

1.) In each story, the protagonist is warned by a deity about the impending flood (Epic, 8-13; Genesis 9).

2.) Each protagonist is given explicit instructions about the building of a boat, from the materials to be used, to the size that the boat is supposed to encompass (Epic, 33-60; Genesis, 10-12).

3.) Both protagonists are commanded to take into the boats their families and animals, as well as provisions for their journey (Epic, 64-69; Genesis, 14-21)

4.) In each, the protagonists are told explicitly when the flood will come, “tomorrow morning” (Epic) and “in seven days” (Genesis).

5.) Both stories note the length of the flood (seven days, Epis, 113-117; forty days and nights, Genesis, 35).

6.) In each account, we are told that those who were not on the ark were destroyed (Epic, 119; Genesis, 39-41).

7.) In each account, the boats comes to rest on mountain tops (Epic, 126-130; Genesis, 46).

8.) After the floods, the protagonists each send out, birds to search for dry ground, a dove, swallow and raven in Epic, and a raven and three doves in Genesis.

9.) Both protagonists, after finding dry ground, offer sacrifices to the deities (Epic, 142-147; Genesis, 62).

10.) As a sign of remembrance of the flood, the goddess Beletili (Istar) is given a colorful necklace of lapis lazuli; in the Genesis account, a rainbow is placed in the heavens.

CONCLUSIONS:

Throughout this informal "series" of postings on the correlations between the Hebrew Scriptures and other ancient Near-Eastern literature, I have continually raised the question, "What does this mean for the person that believes in the "inspiration" of Scripture?" After all, if the correlations noted above are even remotely tenable, we must conclude that at least some of the content in the Hebrew Scriptures 1.) directly borrows from other literature extant at the time of composition or 2.) borrows conceptually from common stories that existed in the cultural consciousness of the Mesopotamian peoples (and their descendants).

Obviously, one could assert, on the basis of a philosophical presupposition about the Hebrew texts, that every other ancient Near-Eastern story that shares common features is a copy or perversion of the original Hebrew story. The immediate problem one faces with this theory, however, is that much of the Near-Eastern examplars predate the writing of the Hebrew Scriptures and were produced by nations/peoples that were much larger and more powerful (and therefore, more internationally influential) than the Hebrews, even at the height of their power. Another major problem with such an assertion is that it is historically reductionistic in that it divorces the writing of the Hebrew Scriptures from the historical contexts in which the writers lived. It further suggests that the world history which the rest of the nations before and at the time of the writing of the Hebrew Scriptures affirmed within their mythical/religious/historical writings was formed and experienced exclusively by the Hebrew peoples. Such a perspective, as already noted, anachronistically assumes an influence upon world history and literature that is entirely disproportionate with the size and impact of Hebrew culture in the ancient world.

If these conclusions are reasonable, what then do we do with the presence of common ancient Near-Eastern mythos in the writings of the Hebrews? I would suggest that closer attention should be paid not to the supposed "originality" of the stories and epics in Hebrew literature, but rather to the way in which the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures deployed these stories.

For example, as a cursory comparison of the creation and flood epics will reveal, while there are numerous and undeniable similarities, there are also extremely crucial differences. For example, in the Assur creation epic, Enlil and Marduk create within the concert of the pantheon of the gods. In the Hebrew text, however, Yahweh is the sole creative personality (even the mention of the potential reference to another deity in the plural address mentioned above does not explicitly detract from Yahweh's "alone-ness" in creation). Morever, in the flood epic of Gilgamesh, the pantheon once again emerges, and the movements of the natural world are attributed to their actions and desires. In the flood narrative of the Hebrew Scriptures, Yahweh is again alone, and the devastation which occurs is the result of natural phenomenon.

As seen, both writers deploy a common epic understanding of world history and cosmological origins. However, the Hebrew writer departs significantly in the way these stories are deployed. Instead of following the identification of natural processes with deitific figures, the Hebrew writer, true to the monotheistic cultus of Hebrew thought, attributes all creation to Yahweh, yet creates a differentiation between Yahweh and the natural processes. In other words, although Yahweh controls the natural order, the natural order is not Yahweh.

In light of the fact that all other Near Eastern creation narratives and flood epics follow the Assur and Gilgamesh epics in their utilization of the pantheonic presence, the Hebrew text stands out significantly in revising the meaning of these events, attributing all to Yahweh alone. To those ancients who were thoroughly ingrained with the common pantheon-istic understanding of the creation and flood, such a departure would have been radical, to say the least. Such a revision strikes at the very heart and tradition of the common stories of the ancient peoples, reimagining them as the story of sovereign Yahweh in the context of human history. Moreover, from the creation epics to the flood story, the Hebrew writers pursued a demythologizistic hermeneutic, refusing to locate the natural forces of the world with divine beings.

From my perspective, it is at this level that the concept of "inspiration" is engaged. While it is true that many changes were made in ancient stories for propogandistic purposes, these revisions usually involved the changing of names and locations. What we find in the Hebrew readaptations, however, is a reordering of the entire complex of theistic belief. Rather than simply trading the pantheon for Yahweh, the Hebrew writers are reinventing these stories from a drastically different theological perspective. By appropriating these stories and calling them their own, the writers are, in a sense, appropriating human history and showing that it is Yahweh who is true God.

Therefore, while we may not be able to affirm every story of the Hebrew Scriptures as "historical" (which many equate with "inspired"), this does not prevent us from affirming the inspiration of these documents. If we follow the perspective outlined above, I think the concept of inspiration takes on an even more powerful meaning. After all, the redeployment of the ancient stories of humanity as the story of Yahweh is a radical claim; it asserts that all of human life--even its myths, legends, epics, imaginations, etc.--are claimed by and encapsulated by Yahweh, the true God.

Something Completely Different

2006-07-13T15:09:00.000-04:00

Okay, the last few weeks have been a lot of theoretical and theological/philosophical discussion. Here is something completely different, and kind of creepy. Can you figure out how this works? I did. Beat that. Ha!

The Influence of Ancient Egyptian Literature upon the Story of Joseph

2006-07-10T08:50:00.000-04:00

In my continuing study of the similarities between the Hebrew Scriptures and contemporaneous (and, in this case, pre-dating) ancient Near Eastern literature, I came across these two Egyptian tales. They are significant in length. However, take a few minutes to read them, and keep the biblical account of Joseph in mind...

The Tale of Sinuhe

I was a henchman who followed his lord, a servant of the Royal harim attending on the hereditary princess, the highly-praised Royal Consort of Sesostris in the pyramid-town of Khnem-esut, the Royal Daughter of Amenemmes in the Pyramid-town of Ka-nofru, even Nofru, the revered.

In year 30, third month of Inundation, day 7, the god attained his horizon, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Sehetepebre. He flew to heaven and was united with the sun's disk; the flesh of the god was merged in him, who made him. Then was the Residence hushed; hearts were filled with mourning; the Great Portals were closed; the courtiers crouched head on lap; the people grieved.

Now His Majesty had despatched an army to the land of the Temhi, and his eldest son was the captain thereof, the good god Sesostris. Even now he was returning, having carried away captives of the Tehenu and cattle of all kinds beyond number. And the Companions of the Royal Palace sent to the western border to acquaint the king's son with the matters that had come to pass at the Court. And the messengers met him on the road, they reached him at time of night. Not a moment did he wait; the Falcon flew away with his henchmen, not suffering it to be known to his army. Howbeit, message had been sent to the Royal Children who were with him in this army, and one of them had been summoned. And lo, I stood and heard his voice as he was speaking, being a little distance aloof; and my heart became distraught, my arms spread apart, trembling having fallen on all my limbs. Leaping I betook myself thence to seek me a hiding-place, and placed me between two brambles so as to sunder the road from its traveler.

I set out southward, yet purposed not to approach the Residence; for I thought there would be strife, and I had no mind to live after him. I crossed the waters of Mewoti hard by the Sycamore, and arrived in Island-of-Snofru. I tarried there in the open fields, and was afoot early, when it was day. I met a man who rose up in my path; he showed dismay of me and feared. When the time of supper came, I drew nigh to the town of Gu.

I ferried over in a barge without a rudder, by the help of a western breeze; and passed on by the East of the quarry in the district Mistress-of-the-Red-Mountain. I gave a road to my feet northward and attained the Wall of the Prince, which was made to repel the Setiu and to crush the Sandfarers. I bowed me down in a thicket through fear lest the watcher on the wall for the day might see.

I went on at time of night, and when it dawned I reached Petni. I halted at the Island-of-Kemwer. An attack of thirst overtook me; I was parched, my throat burned, and I said: This is the taste of death. Then I lifted my heart, and gathered up my body. I heard the sound of the lowing of cattle, and espied men of the Setiu.

A sheikh among them, who was aforetime in Egypt, recognized me, and gave me water; he boiled for me milk. I went with him to his tribe, and they entreated me kindly.

Land gave me to land. I set forth to Byblos, I pushed on to Kedme. I spent half a year there; then Enshi son of Amu, prince of Upper Retenu, took me and said to me: Thou farest well with me, for thou hearest the tongue of Egypt. This he said, for that he had become aware of my qualities, he had heard of my wisdom; Egyptian folk, who were there with him, had testified concerning me. And he said to me: "Wherefore art thou come hither? Hath aught befallen at the Residence?"
And I said to him: "Sehetepebre is departed to the horizon, and none knoweth what has happened in this matter." And I spoke again dissembling: "I came from the expedition to the land of the Temhi, and report was made to me, and my understanding reeled, my heart was no longer in my body; it carried me away on the path of the wastes. Yet none had spoken evil of me, none had spat in my face. I had heard no reviling word, my name had not been heard in the mouth of the herald. I know not what brought me to this country. It was like the dispensation of God. (...)"

Then said he to me: "How shall yon land fare without him, the beneficent god, the fear of whom was throughout the lands like Sakhmet in a year of plague?"
Spake I to him and answered him: "Of a truth his son has entered the Palace and has taken the inheritance of his father. A god is he without a peer; none other surpasses him. A master of prudence is he, excellent in counsel, efficacious in decrees. Goings and comings are at his command. It is he who subdued the foreign lands while his father was within his Palace, and reported to him what was ordered him to do. Valiant is he, achieving with his strong arm; active, and none is like to him, when he is seen charging down on Ro-pedtiu, or approaching the mellay. A curber of horns is he, a weakener of hands; his enemies cannot marshal their ranks. Vengeful is he, a smasher of foreheads; none can stand in his neighbourhood. Long of stride is he, destroying the fugitive; these is no ending for any that turns his back to him. Stout of heart is he when he sees a multitude; he suffers not sloth to encompass his heart. Headlong is he when he falls upon the Easterners; his joy is to plunder the Ro-pedtiu. He seizes the buckles, he tramples under foot; he repeats not his blow in order to kill. None can turn his shaft or bend his bow. The Pedtiu flee before him as before the might of the Great Goddess. He fights without end; he spares not and these is no remnant. He is a master of grace, great in sweetness; he conquers through love. His city loves him more than itself, it rejoices over him more than over its god. Men and women pass by in exultation concerning him, now that he is king. He conquered while yet in the egg; his face has been set toward kingship ever since he was born. He is one who multiplies those who were born with him. He is unique, god-given. This land that he rules rejoices. He is one who enlarges his borders. He will conquer the southern lands, but he heeds not the northern lands. He was made to smite the Setiu, and to crush the Sandfarers. Send to him, let him know thy name. Utter no curse against His Majesty. He fails not to do good to the land that is loyal to him."

And he placed me even before his children, and mated me with his eldest daughter. He caused me to choose for myself of his country, of the best that belonged to him on his border to another country. It was a goodly land called Yaa. Figs were in it and grapes, and its wine was more abundant than its water. Plentiful was its honey, many were its olives; all manner of fruits were upon its trees. Wheat was in it and spelt, and limitless cattle of all kinds. Great also was that which fell to my portion by reason of the love bestowed on me. He made me ruler of a tribe of the best of his country. Food was provided me for my daily fare, and wine for my daily portion, cooked meat and roast,fowl, over and above the animals of the desert; for men hunted and laid before me in addition to the quarry of my dogs. And there were made for me many dainties, and milk prepared in every way.

I spent many years, and my children grew up as mighty men, each one controlling his tribe. The messenger who fared north, or south to the Residence, tarried with me, for I caused all men to tarry. I gave water to the thirsty, and set upon the road him who was strayed; I rescued him who was plundered. When the Setiu waxed insolent to oppose the chieftains of the deserts, I counselled their movements; for this prince of Retenu caused me to pass many years as commander of his host. Every country against which I marched, when I made my assault it was driven from its pastures and wells. I spoiled its cattle, I made captive its inhabitants, I took away their food, I slew people in it; by my strong arm, by my bow, by my movements and by my excellent counsels. I found favour in his heart and he loved me, he marked my bravery and placed me even before his children, when he had seen that my hands prevailed.

There came a mighty man of Retenu and flaunted me in my tent. He was a champion without a peer, and had subdued the whole of Retenu. He vowed that he would fight with me, he planned to rob me, he plotted to spoil my cattle, by the counsel of his tribesfolk. The prince communed with me and I said: "I know him not, forsooth I am no confederate of his, nor one who strode about his encampment. Yet have I ever opened his door, or overthrown his fence ? Nay, it is envy because he sees me doing thy behest. Assuredly, I am like a wandering bull in the midst of a strange herd, and the steer of those cattle charges him, a long-horn attacks him. Is there a humble man who is beloved in the condition of a master? There is no Pedti that makes cause with a man of the Delta. What can fasten the papyrus to the rock? Does a bull love combat and shall then a stronger bull wish to sound the retreat through dread lest that one might equal him? If his heart be toward fighting, let him speak his will. Does God ignore what is ordained for him, or knows he how the matter stands?"

At night-time I strung my bow, and tried my arrows. I drew out my dagger, and polished my weapons. Day dawned and Retenu was already come; it had stirred up its tribes and had assembled the countries of a half of it, it had planned this fight. Forth he came against me where I stood, and I posted myself near him. Every heart burned for me. Women and men jabbered. Every heart was sore for me, saying: "Is there another mighty man who can fight against him?"
Then his shield, his battle-axe and his armful of javelins fell, when I had escaped from his weapons and had caused his arrows to pass by me, uselessly sped; while one approached the other. I shot him, my arrow sticking in his neck. He cried aloud, and fell on his nose. I laid him low with his own battle-axe, and raised my shout of victory over his back. Every 'A'am shrieked. I gave thanks to Montu, but his serfs mourned for him. This prince Enshi, son of Amu, took me to his embrace. Then carried I off his possessions, and spoiled his cattle. What he had devised to do unto me, that did I unto him. I seized what was in his tent, I ransacked his encampment.

I became great thereby, I grew large in my riches, I became abundant in my flocks. Thus God hath done, so as to shew mercy to him whom he had condemned, whom he had made wander to another land. For today is his heart satisfied. A fugitive fled in his season; now the report of me is in the Residence. A laggard lagged because of hunger; now give I bread to my neighbour. A man left his country because of nakedness; but I am clad in white raiment and linen. A man sped for lack of one whom he should send; but I am a plenteous owner of slaves. Beautiful is my house, wide my dwelling-place; the remembrance of me is in the Palace.

O God, whosoever thou art that didst ordain this flight, show mercy and bring me to the Residence! Peradventure thou wilt grant me to see the place where my heart dwelleth. What matter is greater than that my corpse should be buried in the land wherein I was born? Come to my aid! A happy event has befallen. I have caused God to be merciful. May he do the like again so as to ennoble the end of him whom he had abased, his heart grieving for him whom he had compelled to live abroad. If it so be that today he is merciful, may he hear the prayer of one afar off, may he restore him whom he had stricken to the place whence he took him.

O may the King of Egypt show mercy to me, that I may live by his mercy. May I salute the Lady of the Land who is in his Palace. May I hear the behests of her children. O let my flesh grow young again, for old age has befallen, feebleness has overtaken me, mine eyes are heavy, my hands are weak, my legs refuse to follow, my heart is weary, and death approaches me, when they shall bear me to the city of Eternity. Let me serve my Sovereign Lady. O let her discourse to me of her children's beauty. May she spend an eternity over me!

Now it was told the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Kheperkere concerning this pass wherein I was. Thereupon His Majesty sent to me with gifts of the Royal bounty, and gladdened the heart of this his servant, as it had been the prince of any foreign country. And the Royal Children who were within his Palace caused me to hear their behests.

Copy of the Decree Which Was Brought to His Humble Servant Concerning His Return to Egypt

Horus, Life-of-Births; Two Goddesses, Life-of-Births; King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Kheperkere; Son of Re, Sesostris, living for ever and ever. A Royal decree unto the henchman Sinuhe. Behold, this decree of the King is brought to thee to instruct thee as following:
- Thou hast traversed the foreign lands and art gone forth from Kedme to Retenu; land gave thee to land, self-counselled by thine own heart.
What hadst thou done, that aught should be done against thee? Thou hadst not blasphemed, that thy words should be reproved. Thou hadst not spoken in the council of the nobles, that thy utterances should be banned. This determination, it seized thine own heart, it was not in my heart against thee. This thy Heaven, who is in the Palace, is established and prospereth daily; she hath her part in the kingship of the land, her children are at the Court. Mayest thou long enjoy the goodly things that they shall give thee; mayest thou live by their bounty. Come thou to Egypt, that thou mayst see the Residence where thou didst grow, that thou mayst kiss the earth at the Great Portals and have thy lot among the Companions. For today already thou hast begun to be old, thy manhood is spent. Bethink thee of the day of burial, the passing into beatitude: how that the night shall be devoted to thee with ointments, with bandages from the hands of Tayt; and a funeral procession shall be made for thee on the day of joining the earth; the mummy-shell of gold, with head of lazuli; and a heaven above thee; and thou placed upon the hearse, oxen dragging thee, musicians in front of thee; and there shall be performed the dance of the Muu at the door of thy tomb; and the offering-list shall be invoked for thee and slaughterings made beside thy stele; thy columns being shapen of white stone amid the tombs of the Royal Children. Thus shalt thou not die abroad. 'A'amu shall not escort thee. Thou shalt not he placed in a sheep-skin, when thy mound is made. Yea, all these things shall fall to the ground. Wherefore think of thy corpse, and come.

This decree reached me as I stood in the midst of my tribesfolk. It was read aloud to me, and I laid me on my belly and touched the soil, I strewed it on my hair. And I went about my encampment rejoicing, and saying: How should such things be done to a servant whom his heart led astray to barbarous lands? Fair in sooth is the graciousness which delivereth me from death; inasmuch as thy ka will grant me to accomplish the ending of my body at home.

Copy of the Acknowledgement of this Decree

The servant of the harim Sinuhe says:

Fair hail! Discerned is this flight that thy servant made in his witlessness, yea even by thy ka, thou good god, lord of the two lands, whom Re loves and Montu, lord of Thebes, praises Amun lord of Karnak, Sobk, Re, Horus, Hathor, Atum with his Ennead, Sopdu, Neferbaiu, Semseru, Horus of the East, the Lady of Imet who rests on thy head, the Conclave upon the waters, Min in the midst of the deserts, Wereret lady of Punt, Har-uer-re, and all the gods of Ti-muri and of the islands of the sea: they give life and strength to thy nose, they endue thee with their gifts, they give to thee eternity illimitable, time without bourn; the fear of thee is bruited abroad in corn-lands and desert-hills, thou hast subdued all the circuit of the sun.

This thy servant's prayer to his lord to rescue him in the West, the lord of Perception, who perceiveth lowly folk, he perceived it in his noble Palace. Thy servant feared to speak it; now it is like some grave circumstance to repeat it. Thou great god, peer of Re in giving discretion to one toiling for himself, this thy servant is in the hand of a good counsellor in his behoof; verily I am placed beneath his guidance. For Thy Majesty is the victorious Horus, thy hands are strong against all lands. Let now Thy Majesty cause to be brought Maki from Kedme, Khentiaush from Khentkesh, Menus from the lands of the Fenkhu. They are renowned princes, who have grown up in love of thee, albeit unremembered. Retenu is thine, like to thy hounds.

But as touching this thy servant's flight, I planned it not, it was not in my heart, I conceived it not, I know not what sundered me from my place. It was the manner of a dream, as when a Delta-man sees himself in Elephantine, a man of the marshes in Ta-seti. I had not feared. None had pursued after me. I had heard no reviling word. My name had not been heard in the mouth of the herald. Nay, but my body quivered, my feet began to scurry, my heart directed me, the god who ordained this flight drew me away. Yet am I not stiff-backed, inasmuch as suffering the fear of a man that knows his land. For Re has set the fear of thee throughout the land, the dread of thee in every foreign country. Whether I be at home or whether I be in this place, it is thou that canst obscure yon horizon. The sun riseth at thy pleasure, the water in the rivers is drunk at thy will, the air in heaven is breathed at thy word. Thy servant will hand over the viziership which thy servant hath held in this place. But let Thy Majesty do as pleaseth thee. Men live by the breath that thou givest. Re, Horus and Hathor love this thy august nose, which Montu, lord of Thebes, wills shall live eternally.

Envoys came to this servant, and I was suffered to spend a day in Yaa to hand over my possessions to my children, my eldest son taking charge of my tribe, all my possessions being in his hand, my serfs and all my cattle, my fruit and every pleasant tree of mine. Then came this humble servant southward and halted at Paths-of-Horus. The commander who was there, in charge of the frontier-patrol sent a message to the Residence to bear tidings. And His Majesty sent a trusty head-fowler of the Palace, having with him ships laden with presents of the Royal bounty for the Setiu that were come with me to conduct me to Paths-of-Horus. And I named each several one of them by his name. Brewers kneaded and strained in my presence, and every serving-man made busy with his task.

Then I set out and sailed, until I reached the town of Ithtoue. And when the land was lightened and it was morning there came men to summon me, ten coming and ten going to convey me to the Palace. And I pressed my forehead to the ground between the sphinxes, the Royal Children standing in the gateway against my coming. The Companions that had been ushered into the forecourt showed me the way to the Hall of Audience. And I found His Majesty on a throne in a gateway of gold; and I stretched myself on my belly and my wit forsook me in his presence, albeit this god greeted me joyously. Yea, I was like a man caught in the dusk; my soul fled, my flesh quaked, and my heart was not in my body, that I should know life from death.

Thereupon His Majesty said to one of those Companions: Raise him up, let him speak to me. And His Majesty said: "Lo, thou art come, thou hast trodden the deserts, thou hast traversed the wastes; eld has prevailed against thee, thou hast reached old age. It is no small matter that thy corpse should be buried without escort of Pedtiu. But do not thus, do not thus, staying ever speechless, when thy name is pronounced."

But verily I feared punishment, and answered him with the answer of one afraid: What speaketh my lord to me? Would I might answer it, and may not. Lo, it is the hand of God, yea the dread that is in my body, like that which caused this fateful flight. Behold, I am in thy presence. Thine is life; may Thy Majesty do as pleaseth thee.

The Royal Children were caused to be ushered in. Then His Majesty said to the Royal Consort: "Behold Sinuhe, who is come as an 'A'am, an offspring of Setiu-folk."
She gave a great cry, and the Royal Children shrieked out all together. And they said to His Majesty: "It is not really he, O Sovereign, my lord."
And His Majesty said: "Yea, it is really he."

Then brought they their necklaces, their rattles and their sistra, and presented them to His Majesty: "Thy hands be on the Beauteous one, O enduring King, on the ornament of the Lady of Heaven. May Nub give life to thy nose, may the Lady of the Stars join herself to thee. Let the goddess of Upper Egypt fare north, and the goddess of Lower Egypt fare south, united and conjoined in the name of Thy Majesty. May the Uraeus be set upon thy brow. Thou hast delivered thy subjects out of evil. May Re, lord of the lands, show thee grace. Hail to thee, and also to our Sovereign Lady. The horn of thy bow is slacked, thine arrow loosened. Give breath to one that is stifled, and grant us our goodly guerdon in the person of this sheikh Si-mehyt, the Pedti born in Ti-muri. He fled through fear of thee; he left this land through dread of thee. But as for the face of him who sees Thy Majesty, it blenches not; as for the eye that regardeth thee, it fears not."

Then said His Majesty: "Nay, but he shall not fear, he shall not dread. For he shall be a Companion among the magistrates, he shall be set in the midst of the nobles. Get you gone to the Chamber of Adornment to wait upon him."

So when I was gone forth from the Hall of Audience, the Royal Children giving me their hands, we went together to the Great Portals, and I was placed in the house of a Royal Son. There was noble equipment in it, a bathroom and painted devices of the horizon; costly things of the Treasury were in it. Garments of Royal stuff were in every chamber, unguent and the fine oil of the King and of the courtiers whom he loves; and every serving-man made busy with his task. Years were caused to pass away from my flesh, I was shaved and my hair was combed. A burden was given over to the desert, and clothing to the Sandfarers. And I was clad in soft linen, and anointed with fine oil; by night I lay upon a bed. I gave up the sand to them that dwell therein, and oil of wood to him who smears himself with it. There was given to me the house of a provincial governor, such as a Companion may possess; many artificers built it, and all its woodwork was new appointed. And meals were brought to me from the Palace three times, yea four times, a day, over and above that which the Royal Children gave, without remiss.

And there was constructed for me a tomb of stone in the midst of the tombs; the masons that hew tombs marked out its ground-plan; the master-draughtsmen designed in it; the master-sculptors carved in it; and the master-architects who are in the Necropolis bestowed their care upon it. And all the gear that is placed in a tomb-shaft went to its equipment. And ka-servants were given to me, and there was made for me a sepulchral garden, in which were fields, in front of my abode, even as is done for a chief Companion. And my statue was overlaid with gold, and its apron was of real gold. It was His Majesty caused it to be made.

There is no poor man for whom the like hath been done; and I enjoyed the favours of the Royal bounty until the day of death came.

It Is Finished, from the Beginning to the End, According as it Was Found in Writing

Alan H. Gardiner, Notes on the Story of Sinuhe (Librairie Honoré Champion:Paris, 1916). For complete footnotes to text, click here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Tale of the Two Brothers

It is said, there were two brothers, of the same mother and the same father. Anubis was the name of the elder, and Bata the name of the younger. As for Anubis, he had a house and a wife; and his young brother was with him as if he were a son. He was the one who made cothes for him, and he went behind his cattle to the fields. He was the one who did the plowing, and he harvested for him. He was the one who did for him all kinds of labor in the fields. Indeed, his young brother was an excellent man. There was none like him in the whole land, for a god's strength was in him.

Now when many days had passed, his young brother [was tending] his cattle according to his daily custom. And he [returned] to his house in the evening, laden with all kinds of field plants, and with milk, with wood, and with every [good thing] of the field. He placed them before his [elder brother], as he was sitting with his wife. Then he drank and ate and [went to sleep in] his stable among his cattle.

Now when it had dawned and another day had come, [he took foods] that were cooked and placed them before his elder brother. Then he took bread for himself for the fields, and he drove his cattle to let them eat in the fields. He walked behind his cattle, and they would say to him: "The grass is good in such-and-such a place." And he heard all they said and took them to the place of good grass that they desired. Thus the cattle he tended became exceedingly fine, and they increased their offspring very much.

Now at plowing time his [elder] brother said to him: "Have a team [of oxen] made ready for us for plowing, for the soil has emerged and is right for plowing. Also, come to the field with seed, for we shall start plowing tomorrow." So he said to him. Then the young brother made all the preparations that his elder brother had told him [to make].

Now when it had dawned and another day had come, they went to the field with their [seed] and began to plow. And [their hearts] were very pleased with this work they had undertaken. And many days later, when they were in the field, they had need of seed. Then he sent his young brother, saying: "Hurry, fetch us seed from the village." His young brother found the wife of his elder brother seated braiding her hair. He said to her: "Get up, give me seed, so that I may hurry to the field, for my elder brother is waiting for me. Don't delay." She said to him: "Go, open the storeroom and fetch what you want. Don't make me leave my hairdo unfinished."

Then the youth entered his stable and fetched a large vessel, for he wished to take a great quantity of seed. He loaded himself with barley and emmer and came out with it. Thereupon she said to him: "How much is what you have on your shoulder?" He said to her: "Three sacks of emmer and two sacks of barley, five in all, are on my shoulder." So he said to her. Then she [spoke to] him saying: "There is [great] strength in you. I see your vigor daily." And she desired to know him as a man. She got up, took hold of him, and said to him:

"Come, let us spend an hour lying together. It will be good for you. And I will make fine clothes for you."

Then the youth became like a leopard in ['his'] anger over the wicked speech she had made to him; and she became very frightened. He rebuked her, saying: "Look, you are like a mother to me; and your husband is like a father to me. He who is older than I has raised me. What is this great wrong you said to me? Do not say it to me again! But I will not tell it to anyone. I will not let it come from my mouth to any man." He picked up his load; he went off to the field. He reached his elder brother, and they began to work at their task. When evening had come, his elder brother returned to his house. And his young brother tended his cattle, loaded himself with all things of the field, and drove his cattle before him to let them sleep in their stable in the village.

Now the wife of his elder brother was afraid on account of the speech she had made. So she took fat and grease and made herself appear as if she had been beaten, in order to tell her husband, "It was your young brother who beat me." Her husband returned in the evening according to his daily custom. He reached his house and found his wife lying down and seeming ill. She did not pour water over his hands in the usual manner; nor had she lit a fire for him. His house was in darkness, and she lay vomiting.

Her husband said to her: "Who has had words with you?" She said to him: "No one has had words with me except your young brother. When he came to take seed to you, he found me sitting alone. He said to me: 'Come, let us spend an hour lying together; loosen your braids (1). So he said to me. But I would not listen to him. 'Am I not your mother? Is your elder brother not like a father to you?' So I said to him. He became frightened and he beat (me), so as to prevent me from telling you. Now if you let him live, I shall die! Look, when he returns, do [not let him live]!(2) For I am ill from this evil design which he was about to carry out in the morning." (3)

Then his elder brother became like a leopard. He sharpened his spear and took it in his hand. Then his elder (brother) stood behind the door (of) his stable, in order to kill his young brother when he came in the evening to let his cattle enter the stable. Now when the sun had set he loaded himself with all the plants of the field according to his daily custom. He returned, and as the lead cow was about to enter the stable she said to her herdsman: "Here is your elder brother waiting for you with his spear in order to kill you. Run away from him." He heard what his lead cow said, and when another went in she said the same. He looked under the door of his stable and saw the feet of his elder brother as he stood behind the door with his spear in his hand. He set his load on the ground and took off at a run so as to flee. And his elder brother went after him with his spear.

Then his young brother prayed to Pre-Harakhti, saying: "My good lord! It is you who judge between the wicked and the just!" And Pre heard all his plea; and Pre made a great body of water appear between him and his elder brother, and it was full of crocodiles. Thus one came to be on the one slide, and the other on the other side. And his elder brother struck his own hand twice, because he had failed to kill him. Then his young brother called to him on this side, saying: "Wait here until dawn! When the Aten has risen, I shall contend with you before him; and he will hand over the wicked to the just! For I shall not be with you any more. I shall not be in the place in which you are. I shall go to the Valley of the Pine."

Now when it dawned and another day had come, and Pre-Harakhti had risen, one gazed at the other. Then the youth rebuked his elder brother, saying: "What is your coming after me to kill me wrongfully, without having listened to my words? For I am yet your young brother, and you are like a father to me, and your wife is like a mother to me. Is it not so that when I was sent to fetch seed for us your wife said to me: 'Come, let us spend an hour lying together'? But look, it has been turned about for you into another thing." Then he let him know all that had happened between him and his wife. And he swore by Pre-Harakhti, saying: "As to your coming to kill me wrongfully, you carried your spear on the testimony of a filthy whore!" Then he took a reed knife, cut off his phallus, and threw it into the water; and the catfish swallowed it. And he grew weak and became feeble. And his elder brother became very sick at heart and stood weeping for him loudly. He could not cross over to where his young brother was on account of the crocodiles.

Then his young brother called to him, saying: "If you recall something evil, will you not also recall something good, or something that I have done for you? Go back to your home and tend your cattle, for I shall not stay in the place where you are. I shall go to the Valley of the Pine. But what you shall do for me is to come and look after me, when you learn that something has happened to me. I shall take out my heart and place it on top of the blossom of the pine. If the pine is cut down and falls to the ground, you shall come to search for it. If you spend seven years searching for it, let your heart not be disgusted. And when you find it and place it in a bowl of cool water, I shall live to take revenge on him who wronged me. You will know that something has happened to me when one puts a jug of beer in your hand and it ferments. Do not delay at all when this happens to you."

Then he went away to the Valley of the Pine; and his elder brother went to his home, his hand on his head and smeared with dirt (4). When he reached his house, he killed his wife, cast her to the dogs, and sat mourning for his young brother.

Now many days after this, his young brother was in the Valley of the Pine. There was no one with him, and he spent the days hunting desert game. In the evening he returned to sleep under the pine on top of whose blossom his heart was. And after many days he built a mansion for himself with his own hand (in) the Valley of the Pine, filled with all good things, for he wanted to set up a household.

Coming out of his mansion, he encountered the Ennead as they walked about administering the entire land. Then the Ennead addressed him in unison, saying: "O Bata, Bull of the Ennead, are you alone here, having left your town on account of the wife of Anubis, your elder brother? He has killed his wife and you are avenged of all the wrong done to you." And as they felt very sorry for him, PreHarakhti said to Khnum: "Fashion a wife for Bata, that he not live alone!" Then Khnum made a companion for him who was more beautiful in body than any woman in the whole land, for (the fluid of) every god was in her. Then the seven Hathors came (to) see her, and they said with one voice: "She will die by the knife."

He desired her very much. She sat in his house while he spent the day hunting desert game, bringing it and putting it before her. He said to her: "Do not go outdoors, lest the sea snatch you. I cannot rescue you from it, because I am a woman like you. And my heart lies on top of the blossom of the pine. But if another finds it, I shall fight with him." Then he revealed to her all his thoughts.

Now many days after this, when Bata had gone hunting according to his daily custom, the young girl went out to stroll under the pine which was next to her house. Then she saw the sea surging behind her, and she started to run before it and entered her house. Thereupon the sea called to the pine, saying: "Catch her for me!" And the pine took away a lock of her hair. Then the sea brought it to Egypt and laid it in the place of the washermen of Pharaoh. Thereafter the scent of the lock of hair got into the clothes of Pharaoh. And the king quarreled with the royal washermen, saying: "A scent of ointment is in the clothes of Pharaoh!" He quarreled with them every day, and they did not know what to do.

The chief of the royal washermen went to the shore, his heart very sore on account of the daily quarrel with him. Then he realized (5) that he was standing on the shore opposite the lock of hair which was in the water. He had someone go down, and it was brought to him. Its scent was found to be very sweet, and he took it to Pharaoh.

Then the learned scribes of Pharaoh were summoned, and they said to Pharaoh: "As for this lock of hair, it belongs to a daughter of Pre-Harakhti in whom there is the fluid of every god. It is a greeting to you from another country. Let envoys go to every foreign land to search for her. As for the envoy who goes to the Valley of the Pine, let many men go with him to fetch her." His majesty said: "What you have said is very good." And they were sent.

Now many days after this, the men who had gone abroad returned to report to his majesty. But those who had gone to the Valley of the Pine did not return, for Bata had killed them, leaving only one of them to report to his majesty. Then his majesty sent many soldiers and charioteers to bring her back, and with them was a woman into whose hand one had given all kinds of beautiful ladies' jewelry. The woman returned to Egypt with her, and there was jubilation for her in the entire land. His majesty loved her very very much, and he gave her the rank of Great Lady. He spoke with her in order to make her tell about her husband, and she said to his majesty: "Have the pine felled and cut up." The king sent soldiers with their tools to fell the pine. They reached the pine, they felled the blossom on which was Bata's heart, and he fell dead at that moment.

When it had dawned and the next day had come, and the pine had been felled, Anubis, the elder brother of Bata, entered his house. He sat down to wash his hands. He was given a jug of beer, and it fermented. He was given another of wine, and it turned bad. Then he took his staff and his sandals, as well as his clothes and his weapons, and he started to journey to the Valley of the Pine. He entered the mansion of his young brother and found his young brother lying dead on his bed. He wept when he saw his young brother lying dead. He went to search for the heart of his young brother beneath the pine under which his young brother had slept in the evening.(6) He spent three years searching for it without finding it.

When he began the fourth year, his heart longed to return to Egypt, and he. said: "I shall depart tomorrow." So he said in his heart. When it had dawned and another day had come, he went to walk under the pine and spent the day searching for it. When he turned back in the evening, he looked once again in search of it and he found a fruit. He came back with it, and it was the heart of his young brother! He fetched a bowl of cool water, placed it in it, and sat down according to his daily (custom) .

When night had come, his heart swallowed the water, and Bata twitched in all his body. He began to look at his elder brother while his heart was in the bowl. Then Anubis, his elder brother, took the bowl of cool water in which was the heart of his young brother and (let) him drink it. Then his heart stood in its place, and he became as he had been. Thereupon they embraced each other, and they talked to one another.

Then Bata said to his elder brother: "Look, I shall change myself into a great bull of beautiful color, of a kind unknown to man, and you shall sit on my back. By the time the sun has risen, we shall be where my wife is, that I may avenge myself. You shall take me to where the king is, for he will do for you everything good. You shall be rewarded with silver and gold for taking me to Pharaoh. For I shall be a great marvel, and they will jubilate over me in the whole land. Then you shall depart to your village."

When it had dawned and the next day had come, Bata assumed the form which he had told his elder brother. Then Anubis, his elder brother, sat on his back. At dawn he reached the place where the king was. His majesty was informed about him; he saw him and rejoiced over him very much. He made a great offering for him, saying: "It is a great marvel." And there was

jubilation over him in the entire land. Then the king rewarded his elder brother with silver and gold, and he dwelled in his village. The king gave him many people and many things, for Pharaoh loved him very much, more than anyone else in the whole land.

Now when many days had passed, he entered the kitchen (7), stood where the Lady was, and began to speak to her, saying: "Look, I am yet alive!" She said to him: "Who are you?" He said to her: "I am Bata. I know that when you had the pine felled for Pharaoh, it was on account of me, so that I should not live. Look, I am yet alive! I am a bull." The Lady became very frightened because of the speech her husband had made to her. Then he left the kitchen.

His majesty sat down to a day of feasting with her. She poured drink for his majesty, and he was very happy with her. Then she said to his majesty: "Swear to me by God, saying: 'Whatever she will say, I will listen to it!" He listened to all that she said: "Let me eat of the liver of this bull; for he is 'good for nothing." So she said to him. He became very vexed over what she had said, and the heart of Pharaoh was very sore.

When it had dawned and another day had come, the king proclaimed a great offering, namely, the sacrifice of the bull. He sent one of the chief royal slaughterers to sacrifice the bull. And when he had been sacrificed and was carried on the shoulders of the men, he shook his neck and let fall two drops of blood beside the two doorposts of his majesty, one on the one side of the great portal of Pharaoh, and the other on the other side. They grew into two big Persea trees, each of them outstanding. Then one went to tell his majesty: "Two big Persea trees have grown this night-a great marvel f6r his majesty beside the great portal of his majesty." There was jubilation over them in the whole land, and the king made an offering to them.

Many days after this, his majesty appeared at the audience window of lapis lazuli with a wreath of all kinds of flowers on his neck. Then he (mounted) a golden chariot and came out of the palace to view the Persea trees. Then the Lady came out on a team behind Pharaoh. His majesty sat down under one Persea tree (and the Lady under the other. Then Bata) spoke to his wife: "Ha, you false one! I am Bata! I am alive in spite of you. I know that when you had (the pine) felled for Pharaoh, it was on account of me. And when I became a bull, you had me killed."

Many days after this, the Lady stood pouring drink for his majesty, and he was happy with her. Then she said to his majesty: "Swear to me by God, saying: 'Whatever she will say, I will listen to it!' So you shall say." He listened to all that she said. She said: "Have the two Persea trees felled and made into fine furniture." The king listened to all that she said. After a short while his majesty sent skilled craftsmen. They felled the Persea trees of Pharaoh, and the Queen, the Lady, stood watching it. Then a splinter flew and entered the mouth of the Lady. She swallowed it, and in a moment she became pregnant. The king ordered made of them (8) whatever she desired.

Many days after this, she gave birth to a son. One went to tell his majesty: "A son has been born to you." He was fetched, and a nurse and maids were assigned to him. And there was jubilation over him in the whole land. The king sat down to a feast day and held him on his lap. From that hour his majesty loved him very much, and he designated him as Viceroy of Kush. And many days after this, his majesty made him crown prince of the whole land.

Now many days after this, when he had spent [many years] as crown prince of the whole land, his majesty flew up to heaven (9). Then the king (10) said: "Let my great royal officials be brought to me, that I may let them know all that has happened to me." Then his wife was brought to him. He judged her in their presence, and they gave their assent. His elder brother was brought to him, and he made him crown prince of the whole land. He (spent) thirty years as king of Egypt. He departed from life; and his elder brother stood in his place on the day of death.

Colophon.-It has come to a good end under the scribe of the treasury, Kagab, and the scribes of the treasury, Hori and Meremope. Written by the scribe Ennana, the owner of this book. Whoever maligns this book, Thoth will contend with him.

Notes

1. Wnh here does not mean "to put on"; on the contrary, it m@ans "to loosen" one's braids, as a woman does when she lies down. This meaning of wnh is known from the medical texts; see H. von Deines and W. Westendorf, Wdrterbuch der medizini'schen Texte (Berlin, 1961-1962), 11, 194, where the authors write: "Der Terminus wnh bezeichnet eine L6sung zweier Teile von einander, ohne class eine vollstandige Trennung erfoigt."

2. Or restore: "You shall kill him."

3. Literally, "yesterday." The day ended at sunset.

4. Gestures of mourning.

5. Smn, "to establish," evolved to include the meanings "to record,"

and "to determine." Hence the chief washerman did not "stand still," but rather he "determined" or "realized" that he was standing opposite the lock of hair.

6. The phrasing falls to take into account that the pine has been felled.

7. The bull.

8. The Persea trees.

9. I.e., the king died.

10. Bata.

Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), Volume II, 203 - 211.

For an electronic version, click here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notable Similarities

Although the various accounts of Joseph in Genesis do not explicitly replicate the two Egyptian tales referenced above, there are some striking similarities. In the Tale of Two Brothers, the most obvious correlation occurs in the first part wherein the youngest brother is seduced (unsuccessfully) by his older brother's wife. In the Genesis account, Joseph is not a brother of Potipher. However, like the younger brother in the Egyptian Tale, Joseph is a trusted and powerful member in the family. His apparent infidelity to his master (Potipher/older brother) results in exile (the younger brother and prison for Joseph). However, both stories end with the vindication of the wrongly accused, as both the younger brother and Joseph rise to incredible prominence in the Egyptian court.

In the Tale of Sinuhe, the theme of exile/restoration is again revisted, remarkably reminiscent of the fall and rise of Joseph in the Genesis accounts.

Now it may be questioned why it is assumed that the Genesis text is based, in part, upon these and other Egyptian tales. One of the most compelling reasons for this assumption is that given the amount of knowledge concerning the kingdom of Egypt around the time when Joseph presumably rose to prominence, there is no extant evidence to substantiate Joseph's existence. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that the authors of the Genesis texts borrowed from the plethora of Egyptian tales that would have been in existence at the time of composition, substituting a Hebrew identity for characters within the tales. It is speculated that this may have been done for political reasons, perhaps as a polemic against Egyptian occupation or oppression.

In my previous post about the similarities between Genesis genealogies and Sumerian King lists, I devoted a short discussion to what conclusions about the dependence/co-dependence of Hebrew writers on other ancient, non-Hebrew literature means for the concept of the inspiration and authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. This question is especially magnified in the above-referenced examples, for if the correlations are actual, the conclusions which one must reach is that because the Egyptian tales are clearly fictional, so the story of Joseph, which appears to be at least partially based upon these tales, is also (at least partially) fictional. Obviously, in light of many biblicists' claims about the necessity of interpreting the narratives of Hebrew Scripture as "actual history," such a conclusion raises signficant questions which must be critically engaged, not only in how one interprets the Hebrew Scriptures, but also in how one deploys language about the nature and meaning of these texts. While I do not, for the sake of avoiding redundancy, wish to revisit these discussions, I would submit the following thoughts from Paul Ricoeur concerning the nature and value of religious fiction:

"We may say that history by opening us to the different, opens us to the possible, while fiction, by opening us to the unreal, opens us to the essential" (Paul Ricoeur, "The Narrative Function," Semeia 13 (1978): 117-202).

I would suggest that this is a reasonable starting place for thinking about the supernatural nature which religious literature is supposed to express. If God's supernatural activity within human and cosmological history could be reduced to modern conceptions of "history," such activity would be stripped of all supernatural value whatsoever, for critical history can only properly and, more importantly, properly engage that which belongs to natural history (see this article for a more detailed discussion). However, the scandalous nature of fiction is that it expresses a certain form of un-reality, a history where the impossible is that which is most real and genuine, where that which cannot be quantified by modern scientific/historical inquiry is the status quo. Perhaps, on one level, it is only through the "lying" nature of metaphorical nature that some truth can be expressed about that which is beyond the epistemological accessbility of the finite human experience. Such an approach is incredibly offensive to the modern mind; that the supernatural exists and would lay claim to human activity is the most scandalous thought to the human mind. This is necessarily true because humans are naturally and unavoidably prone to quantify and absolutize their own existence. Our narrow range of sensory experience becomes the paradigm for existence. Therefore, the most offensive thought that could present itself to this hegemony is that that which is unreal to human experience could and does legitimately stake a claim in "reality" and, moreover, demands the primacy of qualifying what true reality actually is. How, then, it is possible to describe this constant war between the "real" and "unreal?" The only way is through a lie. To tell the truth through human language is to perpetuate the false primacy of reality-qualified-by-human-experience. To tell the "history" of God, through critical/historical motifs, then, would be nothing more than to bind the supernatural, filtering out anything that cannot be bounded by human experience. Therefore, in a very anti-rational way, fiction/metaphor allows humans the only possibility of dealing honestly with the reality of the "unreal" by deliberately denying the illegitimate hegemony of human experience through the usage anti-humanly-idealized language.

Of course, the moment in which one will not allow fiction to operate as a language-lie is the moment that one capitulates to the false claims of human experience for exclusivity in defining reality. While one may, in insisting upon "literalizing" fiction, claim that one is "preserving" supernatural history, such an insistence is really a double-lie that once again roots the parameters of the supernatural within the grasp of phenomenology.

Thoughts on Materialist Conceptions of Origins

2006-07-07T15:42:00.000-04:00

In my advocacy of evolutionary theory/big bang cosmology in the theological context, I have often been accused of “materialist” conceptions of the universe. By this, my detractors mean that I conceive of the origin of the universe and, on the microcosmic level, life on earth, in purely “material” terms, not allowing for the meaningful participation of God within the creative history of the universe.

While this accusation is patently false (for I hold to a very “high” view of the relation of God to the creation of the universe and all life), and given the fact that I do not wish to devote this post to how I conceive of this relationship, I would like to share a few thoughts which I have had in the course of my reflections upon this issue. While none of them are particularly profound, I think they do, at the very least, get at the heart of the real issues involved in this “debate.”

First of all, I would seriously question human ability to conceive of and linguistically articulate any theory of origins that is not, ultimately, at least philologically materialist. In other words, because the supernatural is epistemically inaccessible to human persons; and because our language is ultimately reflective of our creaturliness (linear, finite, quantified, absolutized); it would seem that we are entirely incapable of expressing and encapsulating the precise relationship of the supernatural to the natural.
As a proof of this, I would cite the example of the resurrection of Jesus. On one level, Christians believe (and I believe) that Christ did physically rise from the dead. In other words, in a phenomenological treatment, something “happened” to Jesus that was observable and quantifiable. Yet on another level, there is something in the resurrection that cannot be expressed with human words. I chuckle sometimes when I read the resurrection accounts, for it seems, at times, that the writers are struggling to find the right words to describe what has happened–at one moment, Jesus is corporeal and at another he is moving through walls. I chuckle, not because of the ineptitude of the descriptions, but rather because the language that humans are forced to utilize is so pathetically inadequate to describe the beauty and mystery of Christ’s resurrection, one in which Christians hope to share in someday.

Although some will gasp, we must ultimately say that the language of resurrection is thoroughly metaphorical. It is not metaphorical in the sense that it is story about something that didn’t really “happen,” or that “resurrection” is code for some existential change in attitude. No, language about resurrection is metaphorical precisely because the comprehensive “real-ness” of resurrection is beyond the pale of human experience. Because of this, the best that our language can hope to muster is metaphor, for better or for worse.

So if we take these considerations and apply them to the discussions of origins, it becomes quickly apparent that we will be unable to describe “how” God created the universe. Even if we can sufficiently trace the causal development throughout history, the juncture where supernatural intersects natural eludes our grasp. Even if we could see it, touch it or existentially experience it, our creaturely language would prohibit us from ever expressing this to another.

Therefore, when speaking of God’s creative activity within the (continuing) creation of the universe, we must take extreme care not to absolutize the metaphorical language which we deploy.

Why is this? The answer leads me back to the accusation of “materialist” conceptions of origins. As mentioned before, the charge often runs that the utilization of evolutionary theory as a descriptor of naturalistic history is somehow necessarily exclusive of considerations of divine interaction in creation. However, what proponents of this accusation do not realize (or, at least, will not admit) is that the positing of the Genesis accounts as descriptors of God’s “supernatural” creation of the universe succombs to the very failings which they locate in evolutionary theory/big bang cosmology.

As already noted, human language is incapable of precisely describing the intersection of the natural and supernatural. Because of this necessary conclusion, any description of creation will, from a linguistic standpoint, be materialist. To advocate that a “7-day” creation reveals the supernatural creation of God, while excluding such claims from big bang cosmology and evolutionary theory, is merely to substitute one materialist conception of creation for another. “7-days,” God “speaking,” etc., are ultimately descriptions of a mechanism of creation. However, if the mechanisms of creation can be concretized and quantified, one has effectively left off of speaking about supernatural activity. In this way, the metaphorical language of Genesis has been taken as explicit, descriptive language. Therefore, the advocates of a “7-day” creation have themselves provided an alternative to the materialism of big bang cosmology and evolutionary theory–a materialism that is covered in a rhetorical cloak of God. Underlying the cloak, however, is the same materially-qualified conception of the universe.

Conclusions

Human language is terribly frustrating. We naturally desire to quantify all aspects of knowledge; our language, by its very nature, absolutizes everything. However, as I have pointed out above, human language is severely deficient in terms of speaking of the supernatural. Despite our best efforts, we will always be reduced to speaking metaphorically about the divine, for to concretize language about the divine is to recast the divine in our own image(s). Therefore, especially in relation to religious language, we must take care not to attempt to make explicit that which can only function properly on the level of metaphor. Theological history has taught us that a failure at this will inevitably lead to error and gross distortion of the apostolic faith (consider the multifarious Christological and Trinitarian heresies of the past and present–I would argue that all are based upon an attempt to concretize language about the Incarnation and the Divine Nature, rather than being content with mystery and tension).

As we consider the discussion of origins one last time, we must take equal care not to let our theological affirmation of God as creator force the absolutizing and materializing of these considerations in regards to descriptions of the mechanisms of the universe. If we fail at this point, we will inevitably transgress in our language about creation: God will cease to be the supernatural Creator and Sustainer of all the universe, and will, rather, be transmuted into merely the biggest object in the universe that is able to move everything around as desired. Such a conception of God’s mysterious and creative activity in relation to the history of the universe is, in my opinion, severely deficient and quickly dissolves the majesty and mystery which is supposed to attend and portend our language and, more importantly, our worship of Creator God.

Reconstructing Justification by Faith

2006-07-06T10:30:00.000-04:00

In my previous post, I engaged the seminal texts which provide the backbone for the Prostestant conception of “justification by faith,” deconstructing the false notion that the “works of the law” to which Paul frequently referred are equivalent with “action,” unconditionally. Furthermore, I outlined how Paul’s discussion of the “works of the law” is utilized as a polemic against the Judaizers of Paul’s day who believed that justification was exclusivistically attained through identification with Jewish cultural and religious identification. Against these assertions, Paul argues that justification is not based upon becoming a “Jew,” but is rather located in identification with Christ through faith. As I have advocated, Paul does not, in his polemic against “works of the law,” mean to advocate that what one does (action) is immaterial to justification. Quite to the contrary, we will see that Paul understands “act” and “attitude” to be inseparably linked to one another and indelibly necessary to justification.

In Romans 3, Paul has completed his tour de force against the Judaizers, definitively eschewing the belief that justification with God is found through the Jewish system. To illustrate the alternative which he proposes (justification by faith), Paul conjures the example of Abraham:

1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

These first three verses are often quoted as the “proof” of Abraham’s justification sola fidei, by faith alone (without action). Especially noted by advocates of this position is the juxtaposition of Abraham being justified by “works” and Abraham’s justification through “belief.” However, if Paul’s argument from chapter 3 is kept in mind (as it should be, since it is the foundation upon which the logic of chapter 4 is built), it is clear, once again, that Paul is not saying that Abraham’s justification was unrelated to “action.” Rather, Paul is simply saying that Abraham’s justification came apart from identification with the Jewish system.

His first proof is the nature of the “crediting” of righteousness:

4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 "Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

In the Jewish mindset, righteousness was by proxy, by being identified with a particular cultural/religious system. However, Paul cuts through the inevitable logic of this “proxy-righteousness” by showing that such functions merely as a blackmail of God. In other words, the Judaizers believed that identification with the Jewish system automatically and unfailingly brought justification. However, Paul notes that this “forces” God hand, for those who work, their “wages” are credited as an obligation. In opposition to this, Paul wishes to argue that God’s justifying righteousness is free gift that is not “compelled” of God by one being identified with a particular cultural/religious system. The fact that God freely justifies the wicked apart from the wicked compelling righteousness from God, to Paul, highlights the ultimate freedom and giftedness of God’s justifying grace.

Thus, in this argument, Paul has cleared the way of any conception that sinners can somehow compel the justifying grace of God by entering through a particular cultural/religious system (as the Judaizers believed).

The next movement of Paul’s logic is to strike at the heart of the Judaizer’s exclusivistic claims, the mark of “circumcision.”

9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.

Again, Paul takes a shot at the Judaizers logic. To the Judaizers, the ultimate transition from pagan to God-pleaser (Jew) was the mark of circumcision. To be circumcised was to be made a permanent part of the covenant community; the continual bearing of the mark of circumcision guaranteed one’s participation within the blessings of the covenant. In a dramatic move, Paul overturns the veracity of the mark of circumcision completely, advocating that the mark of circumcision is not only irrelevant to justification (as the Judaizers believed it to be), but moreover that it is of no worth at all. Again, Abraham is the ultimate archetype of Paul’s system, for Abraham was justified with God before the mark of circumcision was given to Abraham and his offspring. In Paul’s thinking, this dramatically and definitively undermines the exclusivistic claims of the Judaizers, for if Abraham, who became a “Jew” (circumcised) was justified with God before he became a Jew (circumcised), obviously justification is unrelated to participating in the Jewish cultural/religious system.

The rest of Paul’s argument throughout the chapter deals with the nature of the “promise” to Abraham, and solidifies Paul’s claims that the promise made to Abraham was made apart from the Jewish system. Therefore, to Paul, this can only reinforce the meaning that justification and receiving of the “promise of Abraham” come not from participation within the Jewish system, but rather through Christ who “...was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (25).

Because the rest of chapter is a reinforcement of Paul’s argument against the Judaizers, I will not engage the rest of it here. However, suffice it to say that the way in which Paul utilized the example of Abraham does not create the bifurcation between “faith” and “action” which many Protestant conceptions of justification by faith would affirm. Rather, the entire force of Paul’s argument through this, and the preceding chapter, is that the Judaizers are wrong in their contention that justification can only take place within the Jewish system.

Despite the above-referenced conclusions about Paul’s argument, many Protestants–even if they affirm that Paul was polemically writing against the Judaizers–will nonetheless attempt to bolster their bifurcation of “belief” and “action” by utilizing the example of Abraham. As the normal argument proceeds, Abraham was “credited” with righteousness because he “believed” God. Taken with a misunderstanding of Paul’s polemic against the Jadiazers and the exclusvistic conception of the necessity of the “works of the Law,” these advocates of the Protestant flavored “justification by faith alone” separate the nature of “belief” from “action,” advocating that belief is the justifying element apart from any conceivable “action.”

I would suggest, contrary to this contention, that the Protestant formulation of justification by faith alone completely misunderstands the way in which Paul and the other biblical writers understood the example of Abraham and the nature of his belief. A cursory look at the ancient writings about Abraham will sufficiently prove the point.

Genesis 12:

1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.

2 "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."

4 So Abram left, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out from Haran.

This passage is quite striking, for it is packed with action. The word of the Lord comes to Abram. What does Abram do? “So Abram left, as the Lord had told him.” Abram’s obedience to the Lord is displayed in a definitive act–Abram leaves the only world, culture and religious system which he has ever known to follow after a mysterious God who has called him from among the people. The Lord makes a promise to Abram, and Abram believes. However, his belief is revealed not in an attitudinal shift or an existential alignment, but rather with action.

Genesis 13:

14 The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, "Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west. 15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever. 16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. 17 Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you."

18 So Abram moved his tents and went to live near the great trees of Mamre at Hebron, where he built an altar to the LORD.

Again, the Lord commands Abram, telling him to “Go.” How is Abram’s “faith” revealed? “So Abram moved his tents...” As before, Abram’s faith is active; it is not an abstracted “belief,” but is rather the crisis of action in obedience to God.

Genesis 22:

2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about.

As before, the word of the Lord comes to Abraham. Abraham responds in his usual way, with obedience, with action.

These three examples are just a microcosm of the example of Abraham developed throughout Genesis. Abraham was a man who believed the Lord–however, as noted above, his belief was not merely a metaphysical conception of faith that was divorced from action; rather, Abraham’s belief was action, and his action was his faith.

I mention these examples because they are critical in coming to Paul’s utilization of Abraham as an example of faith. If we think of Abraham merely through the lens of the one quotation of Hebrew Scripture which Paul uses (“Abraham believed the Lord and it was credited to him as righteousness”), we miss the grander narrative of Abraham’s life of obedience and active-faith that would have been the source from which Paul drew. Paul was a Jew–throughout his childhood and education, he would have heard the example of Abraham’s obedience to God rehearsed over and over again. All the stories of Abraham’s faithfulness to God would be indelibly at the front of his mind when talking about Abraham. Therefore, to divorce the historical, narrated Abraham from Paul’s utilization of Abraham as an example of “faith” is the greatest injustice that one could do to Paul’s logic in Romans 4.

Toward a Conclusion

The Protestant conception of “justification by faith [alone],” and its consequent bifurcation of “faith” and “action” is a behemoth doctrine that would require a concentrated and massive effort to deconstruct. Certainly a single blog posting is insufficient to comprehensively deal with every issue and objection that could be raised. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to at least outline some preliminary conclusions about what a deconstructed version of “justification by faith” might look like.

The obvious and necessary conclusion of such a deconstruction and rethinking of “justification by faith” is that one must eschew the hard and fast dichotomous relationship that Prostantant theology conceives to exist between “faith” and “works.” As such a bifurcation is based upon an inappropriate and uninformed equation of “works of the law” with “action,” a properly read Pauline theology reveals that not only are “faith” and “action” NOT antithetically related, but moreover that per the example of Abraham, they are intimately, necessarily and inextricably related.

In short, to have faith is to act, and to act is to have faith. There is no meaningful way in which what one believes can be realistically divorced from how one responds to God. Because of this undeniable reality, the classic workaround of the “logical” precedence of “faith” must be rejected also. Alternatively, our language and theology must be restructured to embrace the concomitant relationship between faith and action, visualizing them as a unified whole and not as competing or contradictory facets of human response to God.

I think the best illustration of this comes from Jesus’ words in Matthew 25:

34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

In this passage, Jesus clearly and directly addresses the relationship between “belief” and “action.” The unrighteous were those who had believed that attitudinal change equated to justifying faith. They called Christ, “Lord,” yet their actions denied their claims. Jesus is disgusted with their “faith,” for it is not a true faith. Truly enough, it is theologically sound; they have clearly described Christ as Lord. Intellectually and propositionally, they have faith. However, they have neglected to do that which Christ has commanded. Unlike Abraham, when the call of the Lord to “Go” came, they did not go. Rather, they assented theologically, rationally, and propositionally to the call; but they did not ACT. Therefore, they and their “faith” is rejected–their actions revealed that their faith was no faith at all.

Conversely, Jesus praises the righteous, for they are the ones who have believed and acted–they are the ones who have had faith. It is not as if they did their actions to force God to justify them–as they narrative goes, they did not even realize that they were feeding, clothing and visiting Jesus. They were simply being faithful to the command of Christ to “love your neighbor as yourself.” It is this act of faithfulness to Christ commands, not theological assent (which was identical for both the righteous and unrighteous), that was ultimately justifying to the “sheep.”

I understand that for many (including myself), what has been mentioned above is a radical redefinition of justification by faith. As mentioned in my previous post, the Prostestant conception of justification by faith [alone] has so engrossed the Protestant tradition that it is nearly impossible to suspend one’s inherited theological beliefs in order to look at Paul and Jesus’ teaching in a new way, a way which does not demand a hard bifurcation between “faith” and “action.” However, if we are to truly capture the core of what both Paul and Jesus were saying—that is, that faith is belief/action, that it is the concomitant crisis of trust and action manifested in the daily activities of our lives–we must try.

Works=Actions...Or Do They?

2006-06-26T12:00:00.000-04:00

Over the last few days, I have been engaged in some rather lengthy and in-depth discussions of the concept of “justification-by-faith” with others, especially those from the Reformed tradition. As I have discussed this concept, I have come to the conclusion that the common conception of “justification-by-faith, apart from works” is a loaded and incorrect concept. In the following, I shall outline the objections which I have to this theology.

Per the “standard” explanation of justification-by-faith, humans are justified when they place their faith in Christ, hence “justification by faith.” As sinful humans cannot even be looked upon by a holy God, there must be a way by which humans are somehow changed from sinful to holy, from rejected to accepted of God. The doctrine of justification by faith advocates that this occurs through an “imputation” of righteousness. In this imputation, the righteousness of Christ, the only perfect human, is “placed over” or “imputed” to the one who has faith. Because of this imputation, God is now able to look down upon the sinner (who is still a sinner, BTW). However, instead of seeing sin, filth and wretchedness, God sees only the righteousness of Christ which literally “clothes” the one who has faith in the vicarious righteousness of Christ.

Conceptual problems aside (e.g., how one’s righteousness can be imputed to another...), the doctrine of justification by faith leads to a disavowal of the “necessity” of good works, bad works–any works at all. Sure enough, those who affirm this theological idea will advocate that works are an “outflowing” of the righteousness of Christ that manifest phenomenologically in the life of the believer. However, these “works” are not necessary for justification, for the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is the grand act which has theological, causal and instrumental priority. This, of course, is why the notion of 11th hour death-bed conversions is so popular and has been pretty much the strategy of Protestant missional activity. After all, if one is justified on the basis of an abstract assent of faith and the equally abstract imputation of Christ’s righteousness, the whole of one’s conduct in life-past as well as life-future is virtually a non-issue.

With this being said, I am a firm believer in the concept of “justification by faith.” However, I strongly deny the penal/forensic complexes which Protestant theology has tended to place upon it. The following represents some of the thoughts which I have had over the last couple of days.

Incorrect Identification of “Works”

As already noted, the “standard” Protestant conception of justification by faith (JBF) eschews the role of “works” in justification. An oft cited passage used by proponents of the Protestant conception of justification by faith is Romans 3:28:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law...” (NASB)

and Galatians 2:16:

...nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. (NASB)

In both of these passages, Paul speaks directly to the causes of justification, and flatly contradicts any who would suggest that human persons are justified by the “works of the Law.” Rather, it is through faith in Christ that Paul teaches humans will be justified before God.

To proponents of JBF, these passages are key to their argument. Playing upon Paul’s words, these protagonists, like Paul, assert that humans are justified not by “works” but by faith alone (sola fidei). However, if one looks at the Protestant argument, a devious twist of Paul’s thinking emerges. What is this twist?

As often happens with decontextualized interpretation, the crisis to which Paul was writing in both passages has been forgotten and alternative assumptions have been substituted in their place. As the JBF argument goes, humans are justified not by “works” but by faith. Okay. But what is meant by “works?” To the modern advocate of JBF, “works” are reductionistically equated with “action.” In other words, the “works” to which Paul is alluding, in the interpretation of the JBF-phyte, are unqualitatively equated with any “doing” whatsoever, meaning, intention and effort notwithstanding.

For the past 500 years, this assumption about Paul’s meaning of “works” has dominated Protestant thinking. For those, like myself, who have grown up within the Protestant Church (or, more precisely, within one of its many splintered communities), the equation of “works” with “actions” (unqualitatively) is more natural than breathing. Although Protestants normally avoid cathechisms, the doctrine of works=actions has so enculturated the theological consciousness of its adherents that it is easier to think of denying the Triune nature of God than to think of questioning such an “obvious” equation. Nonetheless, as with all things, a critical assessment is required.

Is Paul really making the equation between “works” and “actions?” I would advocate that the answer is affirmatively “no.” Here’s why:

If one looks at Paul’s discussions of “works,” these same discussions always and without exception occur within a very particular theological context. What is this context? It is the continual crisis which the early church faced between its history in Judaism (and observance of the Mosaic Law) and the very Pauline spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles. The perennial question that faced the diversifying church was not so much what to do with the Gentiles, but rather what the church was to do with its “Jewish-ness.” In other words, what place would the ceremonial/ritual/symbolic cultus of the Jewish people have within the life and community of Christ-followers?

If we look at Paul’s writings, one answer that was continually presented by the leadership of the church was that the Gentile believers should be proselytized to Judaism and its cultic observance of the Law of Moses (particularly, males must be circumcised and food rituals must be observed). This thinking was so prevalent and held sway over the leadership to such an extent that even Peter–the original pro-Gentile evangelist–was convinced to treat the Gentile believers in a different way (because they had not be proselytized to Judaism–see Galatians 2:11-21).

In opposition to this movement (and even to Peter), Paul denounced the Judaizer’s methods and theology. In direct contradiction of their beliefs, Paul assertively taught that it was not on the basis of the Mosaic Law that humans would be justified, but rather through becoming a follow of Christ (not a Jew). Therefore, as we approach Paul’s teachings on “works,” this understanding must be the interpretive paradigm.

So if we take this perspective as the “lens” through which to understand Paul’s teachings on “works,” what will our conclusion be? First of all, we will find that Paul, contrary to the assumptions of JBF, is not making a reductionistic equation between “works” and “action.” Rather, Paul’s entire complex of argument against “works” is based upon his understanding of how the individual stands in relationship to the Law. To Paul, the “works of the Law” are not simply “doing” the Law. To stand in proper relationship to the Law was, for the Jew, much more than simply performing “acts.” Rather, to be rightly related to the Law was more related to “what” one was. To the Jewish people, the act of circumcision was not like a tattoo that merely identified one as part of one group of people. Circumcision, in the most profound way possible, was seen as an ontology-altering act. By circumcision, the participant fully entered into the promises of Abraham and bound themselves indelibly to service to Yahweh.

With this deep, ontological understanding of circumcision, it is understandable why the early Christian Jews were so serious about the circumcision of converted Gentiles. Drawing upon their religious history, they reasoned that just as life with Yahweh required circumcision, so also must following Christ–the son of Yahweh–require the same.

In opposition to this, Paul calls into question the entire logic of the Judaizers, denying not only the necessity of circumcision of the flesh, but also of all other “alignments” (“works) with the Mosaic Law. Yet, as mentioned before, Paul has in his sights not simply the “actions” of the Law. Rather, he is undermining the entire legitimacy of the Mosaic Law in relationship to the follower of Christ. Why does he do this?

To Paul, the fundamental problem with the Judaizers is not that they’re trying to get Gentile believers to “do” the Law as opposed to not “doing” the Law. This is not the issue to Paul at all. What Paul has in his sights is the exclusivity of righteousness that the Jewish Christians believed they had because of their identification with the Law. These believers, like the Pharisees, believed they were justified not simply because they “kept” the Law by actions, but rather because they were Jews (in relationship to the Law). It was their circumcision, their history and their tradition that formed their belief about their righteousness and was the impetus for compelling Gentile believers to become Jews.

Therefore, to Paul, the “works of the Law” are not “actions” in an unqualified sense. Rather, the “works of the Law” is the presumption that one is justified because of who one is in relationship to the Law of Moses. Paul himself notes that he used to struggle with this conception of righteousness. In Philippians 2:4-6, Paul notes:

...although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

According to Paul, he surpassed all in his “righteousness.” Yet of the things he listed, only one is related to “doing” the Law–all the others relate to his origin, upbringing and theology. In Paul’s mind, his righteousness was based primarily upon “who” he was and only minimally upon what he “did.”

With these thoughts in mind, our perspective of Paul’s teaching on “works” changes dramatically. Instead of uncritically equating “works” with “actions,”, we find that Paul is taking aim at a deeper, more fundamental issue: he is attacking the very foundation and exclusivity of those who believed themselves justified with God because of their identification with the Law of Moses. Paul is not saying that what one “does” is unimportant to justification; rather, he is saying that humans are not justified with God by becoming Jews. It is not, in Paul’s thinking, the conversion to a particular moral/legal framework that provides the impetus of justification, but is rather identification with Christ through faith.

Obviously, this last statement, “identification with Christ through faith,” requires some serious unpacking. I shall direct my attention to this idea in my next post.

Sumerian King Lists and Genesis 5 - Part Deux

2006-06-15T01:19:00.000-04:00

My first post concerning this issue raised a lot of questions and spurred a lot of dialogue. Regardless of whether or not a concensus has been achieved amongst those who supported my opinions and those who did not, it did serve to create conversation, raise more questions, and better articulate and outline the salient issues that are involved in the act of interpretation. I believe this dialogue is important, especially in relation to texts that are shrouded in contexts which we will never be able to fully penetrate. Hopefully, this second post can move the conversation to other possibilities for thinking and reflection as well.

As I have continued to study this issue, I have come across some interesting information. For example, consider the following data set:

Name /Age When Son Born / Remaining Years / Total Years ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Adam / 130 / 800 / 930
Seth / 105 / 807 / 912
Enosh / 90 / 815 / 905
Kenan / 70 / 840 / 910
Mahalalel / 65 / 830 / 895
Jared / 162 / 800 / 962
Enoch / 65 / 300 / 365
Methuselah / 187 / 782 / 969
Lamech / 182 / 595 / 777
Noah / 500 / 450 / 950

In the "genealogy" of Genesis 5, each listing follows a formula in which the patriarch's name is given, his age at the birth of his son is listed, the remaining years of his life are noted, concluding with a final "sum" of the total years of his life.

If one looks closely at the numbers, rather than the random number set which appears at first glance, there is actually a very specific theme which unites each entry. For example, each number from each category for each name ends in either the number 0, 2, 5, 7 or 9. As many who have studied this document in relation to Mesopotamian literature have concluded, the totals that are listed for each category are a combination of the Mesopotamian sacred number "60" (as months [5 years] and years [e.g., 60 years] ) and "7." For example, Enoch's data can be computed as follows:

65 [60yrs + 60mos] / 300 [60 x 60mos] / 365 [60 x 6yrs + 60mos] (or 1 solar year)

Following this pattern, never once in the antedeluvian or postdeluvian data sets do the numbers 1, 3, 4, 6, or 8 ever appear. As an actual dispertion of ages across 30 data sets (not to even consider the postdiluvian data sets) would predict that an even dispersion of end-numbers would attain, the fact that the end-numbers in the Genesis 5 data sets are restricted to a certain range of values so strongly suggests an underlying structure that Sparks insists that the probability of such a data range occuring is 4.5 x 10-11, less than one chance in a billion.

So what does this all mean? Clearly, there is strong evidence to suggest that the numbers in the genealogy are artificially generated and do not represent actual numbers. However, in anticipation of the obvious question about this information to an understanding of the "inspiration" of Scripture, I do not think this should create problems for the student of the Scriptures. In my previous post, I advocated that the fact that the genealogy of Genesis 5 is probably based upon a Sumerian king list does not mitigate "inspiration." Rather, it merely requires that one adjust what is potentially a too materialist conception of inspiration.

Concerning this additional information, I do not think it is surprising that the writers would utilize mathematical formulae to create numeric (or, more properly, numerological) meanings. After all, as any cursory reading of the Scriptures quickly reveals, the writings are plentiful with numerological devices (7 days of creation, 40 days of the flood, 70 nations, 12 tribes, 3 days and 3 nights, etc.). What the modern interpreter of the Scriptures must avoid, however, is reading modern conceptions of history and the strict "realist" usage of numbers into the text. Consequently, if the original writers meant to use these numbers in a more "sacred," numerological sense, and were not necessarily attempting to record "real" history, then we, as modern interpreters, actually do violence to the texts by assuming that our utility of numbers and their meaning are categorically applicable to every instance of numbers in Scripture.

Sumerian King Lists and Genesis 5

2006-06-12T12:53:00.000-04:00

For one of my classes this summer, I am reading Kenton L. Sparks’ Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible in which Sparks meticulously draws comparisons and outlines the relationships between the content, form and structure of the Hebrew Scriptures with other texts from periods and people groups predating, consonant with and following the potential dates of authorship of the various biblical texts. While I am barely into this text so far, I have come across some very interesting information.

For example, remember the “genealogy” of Genesis 5? In this section of Genesis, 10 persons, from Adam to Noah, are outlined, including their respective lengths of life. As Sparks points out, the “genealogy” in Genesis 5 is oddly out of place in Mesopotamian literature of the time, for the genealogies of other peoples did not include time frames. Rather, they were simply genealogies that outlined the descendency of families and tribes. However, and interestingly, there was a genre of literature that did include chronological information–“king lists.” For example, consider the following Mesopotamian/Sumerian kings list:

Name Length of Reign

Alulim-------------28,000
Alagar-------------36,000
EnmenluAnna-----43,200
EnmengalAnna----28,800
Dumuzi------------36,000
EnsipaziAnna------28,800
Enmeduranki---21,000
Ubar-Tutu--------18,600

Obviously, as compared to the “genealogy” of Genesis 5, the chronology listed above is quite exaggerated. However, as Sparks notes, the “chronology” was not based upon a belief in an actual passage of time, but rather represented the identification of the personages with specific astronomic values. He goes on to show, in a later chapter of this book, that the Hebrew “genealogy” functions in a quite similar manner.

Finally, one of the most interesting correlations between the earlier Mesopotamian “king list” and the “genealogy” found in Genesis 5 surrounds the seventh member in each list. According to Sparks, the seventh figure in this particular Mesopotamian king list (Enmeduranki) is recorded to have not died, but “ascended into heaven.” Interestingly enough, the seventh figure in the Genesis 5 list, Enoch, is claimed to have “walked with God; then he was no more, for God took him.” According to traditional interpretations, Enoch’s is an example of one being translated directly to eternal life without passing through the experience of death. Therefore, not only do both lists recite the occurrence that one of the people from the lists “went to heaven,” but moreover, the precise “ordering” of the individual is identical between lists.

Obviously, issues like this raise important questions about the Scriptures, not least of which is the concept of “inspiration.” It would seem that those who hold to a very “strong” or “direct” conception of inspiration would have serious problems with this information. Of course, protagonists of a strong view of inspiration could claim that the relationship is merely coincidental and that while the Sumerian king lists are obviously exaggerated in their recording of the length of lives of the kings, the Hebrew “genealogy” records accurate information. Obviously, there is no way in which to completely overrule this possibility. However, as Sparks notes, the correlation between the Sumerian king lists and the Hebrew “genealogy” is quite strong and provides for few other conclusions than that the latter is derived from and mimicks the former.***

While some may see this information as destructive to the Scriptures and their role in faith, I disagree wholeheartedly. In my understanding, the relationship between these two documents reveals that the Scriptures, rather than being magically transcribed, were written by real people within a real sitz em Laben that responded to revelation in a honest, embodied way. To attempt to remove the Scriptures from their larger historical context (which would be done if one were to deny the obvious similarities between the Sumerian king lists and the Hebrew “genealogy”) would be ultimately to deny that the Scriptures functioned in any meaningful capacity for the people by whom they were originally written and would represent nothing more than a literary narcissism on the part of the modern interpreter.

Of course, acknowledging the existence of correlations comes at a cost. It forces us to leave behind materialist interpretations of the texts, and stretches us to move beyond the blinders of our modern, hermeneutical prejudices in an attempt to understand and engage with the understanding and worldviews of the various writers of the Scriptures. While definitely a challenge, I believe such an approach will actually make the Scriptures more enriching for the reader, for entering into the sitz em Laben of the original writers will allow us to create an existential connection with them that is not possible when interpretation proceeds exclusively from the paradigms of the modern reader.

*** EDIT: In my original post, I noted, "so strong, both in content and form, that the probability that the latter is not directly related to the former is 4.5 x 10-11, a big number, to say the least." In reviewing my material, I inadvertantly misapplied this statistic. In Sparks' usuage, the probability is applied to the Hebrew utilization of certian numerical sequences (probably derived from astronomical data) and not derivation from the older Sumerian king list. My apologies.

Universal Reconciliation and the Deconstruction of Personhood

2006-06-06T14:40:00.000-04:00

One of the scandals of religion is that of exclusivity, the belief that the adherents of the particular religion will receive “X” benefits and those who don’t will not. In reaction to these claims of exclusivity, there are many who attempt to equalize the playing field, so to speak. These advocate that if there is God who rewards humans with “X,” then all humans, without qualification, will receive “X” unconditionally.

There is one level, of course, on which this idea, i.e., universal reconciliation, is an appealing concept. After all, it is difficult to imagine eternal separation from reconciled life with God. As callous as we humans can sometimes be towards others, there is something innately disturbing about the idea of another person existing in dysfunctional relationship with God for all of eternity. Such reflections quickly lead to sentimentalized conceptions of eternity in which all, unequivocally, are reconciled to God and others.

Unfortunately, in my understanding, the sentiments of universal reconciliation deviously ignore the issues that lie at the heart of the meaning of reconciliation and forgiveness. In reality, such a move co-opts the crises of reconciliation and forgiveness and replaces it with the opiate of universalism. However, this anaesthetizing of the severe consequences of relationship and its potential dysfunctions serves only to deconstruct the personhood of the those whose eternal destinies are being considered, creating a picture of eternity in which universal reconciliation is entirely anti-personal, the annihilation of both the divine and human self.

The Co-Dependant God

Classic theism presumes that God is a personal being. As a personal being, God is capable of existing in relationship not only to Godself, but also to that which God has created and endowed with personhood. If it is assumed that God relates to human persons on an inter-personal level, one must also affirm the potential for the consequences of such relationship. Therefore, it is not only possible that God can relate in a reconciled manner towards humanity, but also in dysfunctional way.

Universal reconciliation, however, denies this nature to God and introduces to the divine personhood a severe co-dependency. For example, universal reconciliation advocates that in eternity, all will be reconciled to God and exist harmoniously in relationship with God. Therefore, regardless of the way in which the human person has related to God, the end will be the same. Even if one desires to live dysfunctionally in relationship to God, this dysfunction will be erased and replaced with reconciliation.

However, this perspective ignores the nature of personal relationship and the reality of reconciliation. Reconciliation is not something that can be compelled from another. Rather, it is a crisis of personal intersection in which forgiveness and love repair that which is dysfunctional and overcome hostility and enmity. Universal reconciliation, however, allows for no such crisis. Within this framework, reconciliation is necessarily compelled from God. In this way, God is actually required to be reconciled to humans, regardless of how these have individually related themselves to the divine person and in spite of any particular desire they might have one way or the other.

This represents the infinitizing of the neurosis of co-dependency. After all, within universal reconciliation, God must be reconciled and exist in reciprocally reconciled relationship with those who do not desire to be reconciled to God (per the dysfunctional ways in which they have related themselves to God). Like the abused who craves the attention and over-power of their abuser, the God of universal reconciliation co-dependently exists in relationship to those who do not desire proper relationship with God. Yet in this relationship there is no redemption, no equality, and no manifestation of the self-giving nature of love. Rather, it is simply the ultimate form of abuse, self-deprecation, and relational neurosis on behalf of the divine person. Just as abuse and co-dependency are ultimately de-personalizing, so universal reconciliation de-personalizes God, denying that God can meaningfully exist in relationship to other persons. Quite contrarily, the God of universal reconciliation is the ultimate non-person, lacking any real personhood to which human persons could be related, an entity from which relationship can be extracted and commoditized.

Ultimately, it is a wonder why anyone would wish to be reconciled to such a God (even though actual, life-giving reconciliation is actually impossible in such a scenario), yet this is precisely the kind of deity which universal reconciliation engenders.

The De-Human

Although the consequences of universal reconciliation are devastating to any robust conception of the personhood of God, it is also particularly destructive to understanding the nature of the human person. If personhood is central to what it means to be human, then it would naturally follow that as God is also personal, there is room in which human persons can be related to the divine person. As mentioned before, this possibility carries the corollary necessity that this relationship can be either mutually reciprocal or dysfunctional. Therefore, if God is truly Creator and the infinite person, all persons exist in relationship to God, either positively or negatively.

To be able to exist in such a relationship (not only in relationship to the divine person, but also to other human persons) is central to personhood. For example, one would not assign personhood to a chair. After all, although one can exist in relationship to the chair (via a positive or negative assessment of it), this is not a relationship of personality. Interpersonal relationships, however, function on the level of personal and mutual interaction, reciprocity, dysfunction, etc. In other words, persons are able to choose the ways in which they will relate themselves to others. While such choices of relation will not automatically engender the desired relationship, overtures towards a relational end create the possibility of such relationships materializing. Whatever the outcomes of these relational movements will be, the central issue is that the possibility of existing in these kinds of relationships to others is central to personhood, central to being human. The removal of this potential equates to the de-personalizing and de-humanizing of the relational, human person.

Unfortunately, this de-humanizing is precisely the consequence of universal reconciliation. If all are eventually reconciled without qualification, the very potential for determining the ways in which one will relate oneself to others (including the divine person) is annihilated. In another way, if this possibility of relational consequence embodies the very marrow of personhood, the inevitability of universal reconciliation is ultimately de-personalizing and de-humanizing. As human persons, in the eschaton, no longer (or did they ever really have it?) have the potential for either being reconciled to God or existing in dysfunctional relationship to God, the very meaning of personhood has ceased to exist. Although from the divine perspective (noted above) human persons are the abusive overlords that exact a particular relationship from God, from the anthropological perspective, they are equivalent to the chair mentioned above--i.e., they are de-humaned beings who, like the chair, are incapable of existing in reciprocal relationship to the divine person.

Therefore, in attempting to mitigate the admittedly distasteful conception of an eternity in which some will exist in perpetual relational isolation from the divine person, universal reconciliation has effectively deconstructed the human person, removing the potential that any will exist as personal beings beyond the grave. It is curious how this conclusion is any better than the alternative which it seeks to overcome.

Towards an Alternative

If one is to preserve the dynamic of relationship which much exist to not only safeguard the personhood of God, but also protect against the de-humanizing of human persons, I think one must reject universal reconciliation. If reconciliation is something that occurs reciprocally between persons, there must be space in which its opposite can also be a reality. If God must exist in fully reconciled relationship with all human beings, then God has ceased to be a fully-formed personal being, and is merely the co-dependent deity who destructively capitulates to the wills of those who do not desire relationship, but rather power. And if all human persons will inevitably be fully reconciled to God, they have been de-pesonsed and de-humaned, for the potential of personhood to exist destructively over and against another or willfully in reciprocal, reconciled relationship has been effectively annihilated.

Therefore, a middle way must be pursued. There must be space in which the will of God to be reconciled to all can be affirmed while concomitantly preserving the potential that humans persons can choose to be or not be reconciled to God. Against those who assert that this is a cruel perspective of eternity, I would vehemently disagree. While the consequences of choosing to not be reconciled to God and others may be devastating, to not have the potential to embody these consequences would be even worse. A de-humaned eternal existence would be worth nothing, as would a de-personalized God. It is only with the potential for dysfunctional relationship that true reconciliation can be engendered. The magical reconciliation of all things may be aesthetically pleasing and emotionally satisfying on a superfluous level. However, it creates a pseudo-relationship that is plastic and hollow, one which lacks the depth of the true personal interaction for which humans were created.

Why Men Should NOT Be Ordained...

2006-06-01T12:06:00.000-04:00

For those who have even been party to the absurdity that is a conversation against the ordination of women, this is wonderful!

Why We Oppose Men's Ordination

1. Because man's place is in the army.

2. Because no really manly man wants to settle disputes otherwise than by fighting about it.

3. Women would not respect men dressed in skirts.

4. Because men are too emotional to be priests. Their conduct at football matches, in the army, at political conventions shows this, while their innate tendency to appeal to force and violence renders them unfit to represent Jesus.

5. Because some men are so handsome they will distract women worshipers.

6. If the Church is the Bride of Christ, and bishops are as husbands to the Church, all priests should be female.

Some more reasons " Why Men Should Not Be Ordained " from The MENNONITE REPORTER, "Fly on the newsprint" by Ivan Emke (with acknowledgement for inspiration to Rosemary Radfore Ruether.)

1. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as picking turnips or de-horning cattle. It would indeed be "unnatural" for them to do other forms of work. How can we argue with the intended order that is instituted and enforced by nature?

2. For men who have children, their duties as ministers might detract from their responsibilities as parents. Instead of teaching their children important life skills like how to make a wiener-roasting stick, they would be off at some committee meeting or preparing a sermon. Thus these unfortunate children of ordained men would almost certainly receive less attention from their male parent. Some couples might even go so far as to put their children into secular daycare centers to permit the man to fulfill his duties as a minister.

3. According to the Genesis account, men were created before women, presumably as a prototype. It is thus obvious that men represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

4. Men are overly prone to violence. They are responsible for the vast majority of crime in our country, especially violent crime. Thus they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.

5. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinate position that all men should take. The story also illustrates the natural tendency of all men to be either unwilling or unable to take a stand. From the Garden of Gethsemane to football locker rooms, men still have this habit of buckling under the weight of the lowest common denominator. It is expected that even ordained men would still embarrass themselves with their natural tendency toward a pack mentality.

6. Jesus didn't ordain men. He didn't ordain any women either, but two wrongs don't make a right.

7. If men got ordained, then they wouldn't be satisfied with that; they'd want more and more power. Next thing most of the Conference leaders would be men and then where would we be? No. The line must be drawn clearly now before it's too late.

8. Many, if not most, men who seek to be ordained have been influenced by the radical "men's movement" (or "masculist movement"). How can they be good leaders if their loyalties are divided between leading a church and championing the masculist drive for men's rights? The tract writers haven't pronounced on it yet, but the masculist movement is probably profoundly un- Christian.

9. To be an ordained pastor is to nurture and strengthen a whole congregation. But these are not traditional male roles. Rather, throughout the history of Christianity, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more fervently attracted to it. Women, the myth goes, are fulfilled and completed only by their service to others. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination. But if men try to fit into this nurturing role, our young people might grow up with Role Confusion Syndrome, which could lead to such terrible traumas as the Questioning Tradition Syndrome.

10. Men can still be involved in Church activities, without having to be ordained. They can still take up the offering, shovel the sidewalk, and maybe even lead the singing on Father's Day. In other words, by confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church. Why should they feel left out?

http://harbs.blogspot.com/2005/12/opposing-ordination-of-men-to.html

Institute for Creation Research: "Proof" for Young Earth?

2006-05-26T13:32:00.000-04:00

I ran across a fascinating article today. The article discusses “Thousands, Not Billions,” a new conference coordinated by ICR (Institute for Creation Research).

The purpose of the conference, simply enough, is to challenge the commonly accepted conclusions of scientific research which indicate that the universe is billions of years old, and that evolution is an accurate paradigm through which to describe the development of biological life on earth.

To substantiate this “challenge,” ICR commissioned its own scientists to conduct research to find proof for a 6,000 year-old earth.

Although I have some strong feelings about it, I will not spend time commenting on the merits of ICR’s “scientists,” nor of the methodology they employ to arrive at their conclusions (which, interestingly enough, are presupposed). However, I would like to simply outline some thoughts I have on the issues raised in this article, in general.

First of all, let me frame the issue. ICR’s website outlines their mission as follows:

We believe God has raised up [Institute for Creation Research] to spearhead biblical Christianity's defense against godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism.

Clearly, ICR believes that not only is evolutionary theory illegitimate, but moreover they make it a soteriological issue. In other words, if one happens to believe that life developed through the mechanism of evolution, one cannot possibly be a Christian. Or at least not a “biblical Christian.” Rather, to the ICR, affirming the findings of modern science is tantamount to compromising the faith, and aligning oneself with the “godless.”

Not content simply to base the argument on the “authority” of Scripture, the ICR presses the envelope farther:

Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible will Christians be successful in 'the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ' (II Corinthians 10:4, 5) [emphasis added]

Here, again, it is clear to see that the scientific merits of evolutionary theory are rejected. However, ICR proceeds to assert that part of their mission to “spearhead Christianity’s defense” is to not simply to make claims based upon interpretation, but moreover to provide alternative scientific proof that will undermine evolutionary theory and establish their understanding of the biblical view of creation.

To be blunt, I have serious problems with this.

First, such an approach, in my understanding, represents a dysfunctional understanding of the nature of the Scriptures and their role in the process of forming, shaping and in-forming belief. To the ICR, it seems that Scriptures are practically deified, propped up as a repository of absolute, infallible truth, not only of the theological variety, but of the scientific/historical flavor as well.

Larry Vardiman, a scientist of ICR, reflects this idea: “Even most Christians believe the Earth has been around for millions or even billions of years and that the Bible really isn't accurate when it talks about when God created the Earth.” By making the Scriptures an object of verifiable historical/scientific fact, the ICR has actually created the very problem they seek to overcome. An historical/scientific interpretations of a 6,000 year-old earth is only necessary when one assumes that the Scriptures are intended to communicate this kind of language. By presupposing that the Scriptures are providing this kind of information, the ICR has opened the Scriptures to the messy sea of verifiability. The largest problem with this, of course, is that if one has asserted that the Scriptures are a reservoir of “infallible” historical/scientific truth, and then this “truth” is overturned conclusively by other facts, one is left in a very precarious position. The only recourse will be 1.) To deny the legitimacy of that which has overturned the Scriptures as an historical/scientific source book or 2.) Discover/Manufacture contrary evidence. In the final analysis, by asserting that the Scriptures are authoritative in matters of science/critical history, one has, ultimately, introduced the possibility that the Scriptures can be overturned/disproved by these very same sources. As the Scriptures are clearly not meant to provide this kind of information, in a head-to-head battle with scientific methodology, the Scriptures will always lose.

Although the issue noted above is a serious one, I think what follows is an even more devious consequence of ICR’s approach. As noted above, ICR is not content to simply ignore the conclusions of scientific methodology–rather, they are taking the fight “to the streets,” gathering their own scientists to establish their own evidence concerning origins.

Before continuing, let me add a caveat. I am not advocating that scientific methodology should be left unquestioned. As with all things, an unchecked authority will always develop into a hegemony that totalitarily establishes “truth.” There is, no doubt, a definite danger that this could occur with scientific methodology, and one’s approach to the findings of scientific methodology should assuredly not be blind acquiescence.

With this said, however, ICR’s perspective of scientific methodology, especially in relation to the claims of evolutionary theory, almost assumes the rhetoric of conspiracy theorists. Evolutionary theory, and its adherents and proponents, are characterized as “godless compromisers” who have rejected the truth of God and are blinded by sin and the powers of evil. Given this level of rhetoric, it is difficult to believe that ICR’s approach is credible.

However, the biggest problem is that ICR is asserting that its conclusions are real “science.” While I am no scientist, it is not difficult to see the clear presuppositional biases being fleshed out in ICR’s scientist’s conclusions.

The most unfortunate consequence of this kind of “scientific” inquiry, however, is what it produces in the field of knowledge. While science is far from objective, objectivity is the ideal, and the principles which drive scientific research involve the well-known tenets of observation, measurement and replication, as well as the criterion of peer-review. None of these crucial elements have attained in ICR’s approach. Rather, a presupposition has been proposed, and manpower amassed to set out to substantiate it through “research.” This approach is completely antithetical to scientific methodology. So while ICR wishes to overcome the findings of modern science through science itself, ICR actually develops an entirely new paradigm for scientific research, one based on amassing proof as opposed to description. In effect, ICR’s approach reveals the commodification of scientific inquiry, in which PhD’s can be bought and commissioned to lend weight to a particular viewpoint. Unfortunately, lost in the mix of presuppositional proof-texting is any meaningful description and application the issues under consideration.

Biblical Inerrancy: Helpful?

2006-05-23T14:11:00.000-04:00

Over the last year, I have engaged numerous individuals on the issue of biblical inerrancy. For many Protestant denominations, inerrancy is a catchword which differentiates conservatives from liberals, those who are “true to the Scriptures” and those who are not, etc. I am no stranger or newcomer to this argument, for the denomination to which I belong has a definitive stance on this issue. As our Articles of Religion clearly state,

[The Scriptures] are the inspired and infallibly written Word of God, fully inerrant in their original manuscripts and superior to all human authority, and have been transmitted to the present without corruption of any essential doctrine.

As seen above, the issue of inerrancy is a textual issue. But what, exactly, do evangelicals mean by biblical inerrancy? While a precise definition is difficult to provide given the fact that there is wide range of opinions as to the extent of “inerrancy,” a cursory understanding can be achieved by looking at The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), a document which has dramatically impacted the current evangelical position on biblical inerrancy.

Article VI of the Statement asserts,

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

Here, it is clear that the “inspiredness” of the Scriptures is precisely linked with the “original” biblical documents.

As Article X more explicitly notes,

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

Again, the contention is made that the inspiration (and therefore, inerrancy) of the Scriptures applies “only” to the original autographs, the actual paper and ink produced by the writers. Any copies following, according to the Statement, are only considered inspired and authoritative “to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.”

Articles XI and XII form a conclusion to these claims:

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

and

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

Obviously, to the writers of the Statement, the integrity of the actual, physical, and original documents is crucial. As the writers of the Statement assert, the terms “inerrancy” and “infallibility” are “negative terms [that] have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths.” Furthermore, the reason for this “safeguard” is precisely related to new directions of thinking pursued in Enlightenment and Renaissance thinking. Again, the Statement:

Since the Renaissance, and more particularly since the Enlightenment, world views have been developed that involve skepticism about basic Christian tenets. Such are the agnosticism that denies that God is knowable, the rationalism that denies that He is incomprehensible, the idealism that denies that He is transcendent, and the existentialism that denies rationality in His relationships with us. When these un- and anti-Biblical principles seep into men's theologies at a presuppositional level, as today they frequently do, faithful interpretation of Holy Scripture becomes impossible.

Although the language of the Statement appears overly strong at points, its main theses have been adopted by most evangelical denominations in America. However, I believe the question must be raised, “Is biblical inerrancy a helpful doctrine?”

The issue of inerrancy is, for the most part, a Protestant conception, particularly within the evangelical community. While it is true that both Roman Catholics and Orthodox believers maintain a high view of the inspired nature of the Scriptures, one does not find the level of stress on inerrancy that one will find within Protestant evangelicalism.

The reason for this, obviously, is the way in which Roman Catholics and the Orthodox conceive of the authority of Scripture. While Protestants understand the regula fidei (rule of faith) through the paradigm of sola Scriptura, Roman Catholics and Orthodox maintain the dual authority of Scripture and tradition. To both groups (although to varying degrees, admittedly), Scripture is authoritative not simply because it is inspired, but more importantly because it is part of the apostolic tradition which Christ instituted and which continues to function to preserve Christ’s teachings in the apostolic tradition of the Church (maintained within the office of the bishop). In this way, Roman Catholics and Orthodox need not stress as heavily the “inerrancy” of the original texts, for the teaching of the apostles does not rest simply in a select group of texts, but rather is preserved and rightly interpreted within the ecclesial tradition of the historic church. Therefore, any attempts to undermine the authority of the texts based upon textual criticism is futile and irrelevant, for the authority of the church’s faith and belief is not based exclusively upon the texts, but rather rests within the larger apostolic tradition within the community of believers.

To the Protestant, however, there is no such recourse in the face of modern textual criticism. As Protestants affirm Scripture as the sole source of authoritative truth and right belief (for even the “truth” contained in the ecumenical creeds of the historic church are only authoritative as they are founded upon the Scriptures), an attack on the texts of Scripture represents a direct undermining of the only source of truth about Christ and salvation. In this way, it is not surprising that one finds “inerrancy” and “infallibility” to be such strong points of contention for Protestants, for to touch the Scriptures is to touch the only foundation of faith and belief.

For Protestants, it would be theological suicide to reject biblical inerrancy (and, in fact, this self-destruction is being seen in many Protestant groups today). Yet at the same time, I think that the very doctrine of inerrancy reveals a dysfunctional conception of the Scriptures. On one level, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy represents a materialist perspective on Scriptures. As noted in the Statement, the “inerrancy” of the Scriptures is located precisely in the original autographs of the biblical writings. This subsequently requires that one maintain a rigid defense of the textual fidelity of the autographs, for any discrepancy immediately undermines the “perfection” of the texts’ inspiration.

Unfortunately, in pursuing this line of thinking, Protestants have actually capitulated the argument to those against whom they are attempting to “safeguard” the Scriptures. Rather than affirming the value of Scripture in their role within the apostolic tradition of the Church, Protestants have gone “all in” and placed all emphasis upon the textual perfection of the original autographs. However, in doing so, they have opened up the door for textual criticism to wreak havoc on Scriptural authority, for any proof that can be offered as a variation in the physical texts of the original autographs inevitably brings the entire complex of inerrancy crashing to the ground. Ironically, in attempting to safeguard biblical “truth” from the negative forces perceived within textual criticism, Protestants have built their fortress in the territory of their “enemy,” moving all reinforcements to the front gate while failing to recognize that the rear wall lies in disrepair.

It is inevitable that textual criticism will eventually overrun the notion biblical inerrancy. One of the reasons for this is that inerrancy leads to literalism, and the rigidity with which many hold to inerrancy flows naturally into confessions about literality. For example, consider the issue of origins. Many who hold to inerrancy also believe that discussions in the Scriptures about the phenomenological history of the universe must be interpreted literally. This, in turn, leads to assertions that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, that all species on the planet were created instantly, etc. Despite these claims, the overwhelming burden of scientific observation concludes that these claims are patently nonfactual. Rather, according to the best naturalistic observations, the universe is billions of years old, evolution is a helpful and accurate paradigm for discussing biological origins and development, etc.

However, even though the mass of scientific evidence leads to these results, the biblical literalist must reject these claims. Consider the claims of the previously cited Statement:

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

In this way, such literalism, which is intended to “safeguard” the teachings and authority of Scripture, forces the adherent to divorce belief from existence–it requires that one ignore the universe in which one lives in order to affirm the claims of literalism and inerrancy. Such inevitably bifurcates Scriptural revelation from the revelation of God in the created order.

In conclusion, I would ask why biblical inerrancy is necessary. First of all, and as I have already noted, the categories upon which biblical inerrancy is built are the very same categories employed by textual critics whom biblical inerrantists believe are undermining the Scriptures. However, in doing so, the adoption of these same categories opens the door for the critiques against which biblical inerrancy is supposed to “safeguard” the Scriptures. By defining the Scriptures “negatively,” biblical inerrantists have already lost the battle–the continuing rhetoric is merely engaging in damage control, a defensive retreat to maintain whatever ground can be salvaged from that which was given away in the great capitulation.

Why should Christians care what textual critics say about the Scriptures? When it comes down to it, the church does not affirm the authority of the Scriptures because of the “magical” nature of the original autographs. And even if this were so, it would be impossible to “prove” the inerrancy of the documents, for 1.) they no longer exist and 2.) there is no objective criterion against which to determine whether or not they are inerrant. Therefore, biblical inerrancy, in the final analysis, is merely a tautology, and opens a door to textual criticism that should never even exist.

Contrary to this, the church affirms the authority of the Scriptures because they are the formative texts of our faith; they represent and encapsulate the earliest fragments of the apostolic tradition that has been preserved throughout the centuries in the lives and community of God’s people–the church. As such, the need for inerrancy only arises when the Scriptures are divorced from their historical role within the community of believers and abandoned to the subjective paradigms of the individual interpreter. In this way, biblical inerrancy represents the ultimate consummation of the privatization of the Scriptures. When the Scriptures function within the community of believers, there is no need to defend Scripture against “outside” forces, for the community forms a self-authenticating hermeneutic. Deviant interpretations and marginalizations, within such a community, will be rejected and corrected. However, when Scripture is catapulted into the privatized realm of individual interpretation, the field of hermeneutics is open wide and there is no authority–tradition or otherwise–against which to evaluate interpretation. In other words, there is no longer any “outside”–when Scripture is alone the authority, its interpretation, application and authentication is the property of all. Therefore, the only recourse is that of inerrancy. Biblical inerrancy represents the last effort of those who wish to affirm sola Scriptura while concomitantly “protecting” it from outside interpretation. The logic proceeds that if strong claims can be made about the inerrant nature of the original autographs, this affirmation will somehow prevent distortion. However, such is merely an exercise in futility. By wrenching interpretation from the community and placing it solely within the grasp of the individual, biblical inerrantists have effectively created the conditions in which textual criticism will actualize the inevitable outcome of interpretation divorced from tradition.

In the preceding, I have spoken strongly against biblical inerrancy. In doing so, I do not wish to undermine the authority of Scripture, nor do I seek to devalue the role of the biblical documents in the formation of the community of believers. However, I do see that biblical inerrancy represents a dysfunctional understanding of the nature and function of the Scriptures within the church and the lives of its individual members. While I affirm the authority of the Scriptures, I do not understand the necessity of affirming the inerrancy of the same. In fact, as I have extensively noted above, I see severe problems with such a view, not the least of which is the capitulation of the Scriptures to the categories of modern historical/textual criticism. What is needed, in my opinion, is a return to understanding Scripture within the apostolic tradition of the church, rather than as an atomized authority that is (falsely) self-authenticating. While Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy each have their own problems, I feel that their understanding of the role of Scripture within the life and history of the people of God is much healthier than that of Protestantism. To extend this claim farther, I truly believe that it will be from within these two segments of Christianity that the Scriptures will continue to be meaningful after Protestantism’s capitulation is fully actualized and textual/historical criticism wins the day.

I welcome any dialogue that will ensue from this.

The Problem with Atonement Metaphors

2006-05-17T08:44:00.000-04:00

As I was making my arduous drive home the other day, I was listening to our local feed of Air1, the “positive alternative.” Often, Air1 has various Christian speakers, leaders, and artists record short, 30-second lessons in Christian theology and biblical interpretation. More often than not, these lessons are theologically uncritical and philosophically obtuse platitudes that only perpetuate the theological wasteland of American religiosity. This particular day did not disappoint. KJ-52, a Christian rap artist and regular contributor to Air1's segments, came on air to offer his take on the atonement. Not surprisingly, he conjured the tried and true story of the train conductor.

As the story goes, there was a man whose job was to make sure that the “switch”on a set of train tracks was appropriately thrown to prevent passing trains from smashing into each other. On one particular day, the man brought his son to work with him and told him to stay close to the booth. On schedule, two trains approached the switch, and the man prepared to throw the lever. As he was preparing to do this, however, he looked up and realized–with horror--that his son was playing on the train tracks. If he left to save his son, he would not be able to operate the switch at the appropriate time and the two trains would collide, killing hundreds of people. With tears blurring his eyes, the man faithfully performed his job, turning away as the successfully switched trains mutilated his son, never realizing that their safe passage resulted in the death of the man’s son. As the moral of the story goes, God’s love is such that God, like the man in the story, loved humanity so much that he was willing to sacrifice his son to save people.

On a sentimental level, this metaphor “works.” When effectively told, it communicates a powerful emotion, for who could not empathize with the man’s loss! Growing up, I remember hearing this story told at numerous camps, youth retreats, and Sunday school classes. At the time, I accepted it uncritically as an appropriate description of the atonement and God’s love in the cross of Christ. However, as I reflect upon this metaphor from my childhood, I realize that there is quite sinister side to it.

The first deficiency that I see in this metaphor concerns the relationship of Father and Son. In the metaphor, Christ is represented as a mindless child. Here, there is no sense of the biblical picture of Christ’s resolve to remain obedient to the will of God, even to the point of death. Rather, Christ’s death in the metaphor is presented as something extracted almost accidentally from him, as if death was the final “blindside” of God’s will against Christ. Quite to the contrary, the biblical record shows that Christ is fully aware that his faithfulness to the will of the Father will result in death, for “surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!” (Luke 13:33).

Secondly, the problem of sin is completely artificial. In the metaphor, humanity is not represented as being saved from something unnatural or contrary to the will of God. No, the trains are simply doing what trains are meant to do, and God (pictured in the man) is facilitating such action by throwing the switch. Contrary to this picture, the biblical record and the testimony of the church throughout history represents that humanity’s sinfulness is something entirely contrary to the will of God. It is an alienating force that severs the human/divine relationship irrevocably. Humanity, in its sinfulness, is left helpless, slaves to the forces of non-existence and self-destruction. This reality is completely lost in the metaphor, and the salvation of humanity is simply an artificial rescue from a series of unfortunate events.

Finally, and most devious of all, is the fact that not only is the problem of sin artificial, but more accurately it is created by the disobedience of Christ. If the had not disobeyed his father, he would not have walked onto the tracks. And if he had never walked onto the tracks, there would be no need for the salvation. Therefore, the “sacrifice” which occurs in the not out of necessity or related to humanity’s helplessness. Rather, it is exclusively centered upon the ineptitude of the father to maintain control over his son and upon the disobedience of the son to the father’s explicit instructions. In this way, while the problem (the collision of the trains) is solved by the sacrifice of the son, the problem itself was caused by the son. Therefore, if this is a metaphor of the atonement, one can only conclude that God is merely fixing the mess that Christ has made by allowing him to reap the consequences of his own disobedience.

Obviously, the dictum that metaphors can only “go” so far must be kept in mind. However, the value of a metaphor lies precisely in its ability to relate generally to the issue being descriptively explored. In this sense, this common “metaphor” of atonement fails, not simply because it cannot be “stretched” very far, but more importantly because it does not encapsulate the necessary beginning assumptions which are crucial to embarking upon any discussion of the relationship of the Father, Son, the cross and humanity in the atonement. “Metaphors” such as the one described above do not meet these primal requisites and should, therefore, be rejected by critically thinking people everywhere. This is primarily important because “metaphors such as the story critiqued above are utilized in the theological formation of young minds. If the foundation of atonement thinking is dysfunctional, there is little hope that any subsequent reasoning will lead to a fruitful understanding.

Kids Say the Darndest Things...and So Does God.

2006-05-15T14:29:00.000-04:00

Recently, one of those oft-annoying "FWD:" emails went around the office. One of the gentlemen with whom I work is notorious (thank God) for coming up with deliciously sarcastic and belligerent responses to these emails. Below is an excellent sample of his masterful work:

You know how elementary school teachers are always having kids compose letters to God, and then everyone oohs and ahhs about how cute the letters are? Well, God doesnt' think it's so cute, according to SC. Here's what God has to say in reply...

1) Dear God: Are you really invisible or is that just a trick? - Lucy

ANSWER: It's just a trick. When manifesting in human form, I take the name of George W. Bush.

2) Dear God: Did you mean for giraffes to look like that or was it an accident? - Norma

ANSWER: I meant for it to happen. Just like I meant for your Daddy to beat your Mommy with a tire iron.

3) Dear God: Instead of letting people die and having to make new ones, why not just keep the ones you got now? - Jane

ANSWER: People die because they do bad things. Not my problem.

4) Dear God: I went to this wedding and they kissed right in church. Is that okay? - Neil

ANSWER: It is okay to kiss in church as long as you are kissing someone of the opposite sex. Otherwise, you're going to hell.

5) Dear God: In bible times, did they really talk that fancy? - Jennifer

ANSWER: No, they didn't talk that fancy in bible times. Only homosexual 17th-century English kings talked like that. But it's fun to pretend.

6) Dear God: I am American. What are you? - Robert

ANSWER: I am THE American.

7) Dear God: Thanks for the baby brother but what I prayed for was a puppy. - Joyce

ANSWER: Get used to not getting what you pray for. It's one of those amusing little quirks that you'll come to know and love about me.

8) Dear God: Please put another holiday in between Christmas and Easter. There is nothing good in there now. - Ginny

ANSWER: Christmas and Easter are the only two holidays you need to worry about. Spend the months in between praying forgiveness for that thing you did in the bathroom the other day.

9) Dear God: If we come back as something, please don't let me be Jennifer Horton because I hate her. - Denise

ANSWER: You'll be lucky to come back as a dung beetle, you little turd.

10) Dear God: If you give me a genie lamp like Alladin, I will give you anything you want except my money and my chess set. - Raphael

ANSWER: Listen, Raph-whatever your name is. I don't want your chess set anyway. Only geeks play chess.

11) Dear God: Please send Dennis Clark to a different camp this year. - Peter

ANSWER: How about I just smite him instead?

12) Dear God: Maybe Cain and Abel would not kill each other so much if they had their own rooms. It works with my brother. - Larry

ANSWER: Cain and Abel fought because Cain was a sinful, sinful man. Abel had to die so that ye might have life and have it more.... Oh wait. That was Jesus. Never mind. Wrong Testament.

13) Dear God: I want to be just like my dad when I get big, but not with so much hair all over. - Sam

ANSWER: So you're saying you want to be a hopeless loser with a bratty kid?

14) Dear God: I keep waiting for Spring, but it never comes yet. Don't forget. - Mark

ANSWER: How about you worry about not whining so much, and let me worry about the weather, mkay?

15) Dear God: You don't have to worry about me, I always look both ways. - Dean

ANSWER: Then I guess I'll have to come up with some other way to get rid of you.

16) Dear God: I think the stapler is one of your greatest inventions. - Ruth M.

ANSWER: Thank you. It certainly was a moment of inspiration that I didn't have when I invented you.

17) Dear God: I think about you sometimes even when I'm not praying. - Elliott

ANSWER: Really? I never think about you. Come to think of it, I don't even know who you are.

18) Dear God: I bet it is hard for you to love all of everybody in the whole world. There are only 4 people in my family and I can never do it. - Nan

ANSWER: I don't love everyone in the whole world. Only white, straight, Americans. And I prefer the males, although I put up with the women because they have the babies. A necessary evil, to be sure.

19) Dear God: If you watch in church on Sunday, I will show you my new shoes. - Mickey D.

ANSWER: It better only be your shoes you're showing, buddy boy.

20) Dear God: I would like to live 900 years like the guy in the bible. - Chris

ANSWER: I don't think I could handle you more than 12 or 13 years, I'm afraid.

21) Dear God: We read Thos. Edison made light. But in Sun. School they said you did it. I bet he stoled your idea. - Donna

ANSWER: Scientists like Thomas Edison are godless sinners for whom hell was made. If your school is teaching that, it may need to be destroyed by a well-placed bomb.

22) Dear God: If you didn't let the dinosaur go extinct, we would not have a country. You did the right thing. - Jonathon.

ANSWER: Dinosaurs? Haven't you figured out yet that dinosaurs are hoaxes, propogated by the vast atheist scientist conspiracy?

23) Dear God: I do not think anyone could be a better God. Well, I just want you to know but I am not just saying that because you are God. - Charles

ANSWER: I'll meet you one day in Paradise, my child.

(thanks to SC!)

Newsflash: Young Earth Creationists Secure Release of Criminals

2006-05-09T12:35:00.000-04:00

The nation is in an uproar today as Young Earth Creationists (YECs) succeed in a supreme court bid to release thousands of criminals from prison.

Thousands of rapists, murderers and other felons have had their convictions overturned, following a ruling that results of forensic science are inadmissible in a criminal trial.

The court case which led to the ruling was initiated by a popular YEC organisation, Evidence in Genesis (EiG). EiG strongly believes that science is totally unreliable at revealing past events.

"It is pure arrogance that a human scientist can presume to piece together the past," EiG spokesman Ken Bacon said in a media conference outside court. "The scientific method cannot be applied to historical events. By definition, science must be repeatable."

Prosecutors have come to depend heavily upon forensic science in the last few decades. Countless guilty verdicts have been secured through the scientific analysis of crime scenes and forensic evidence.

"Only God can reliably tell us about the past", commented Bacon. "Man's science is, at best, speculative and theoretical."

"How can you know that the past which you are analysing worked the same as our science lab today? That is the assumption forensic science makes, it is an utterly foolish and fallacious assumption. It is an evolutionary approach to science and we condemn it."

When asked about their success, Bacon said "This is a very pleasing result. It shows that we need to be careful how we view science, especially when it attempts to provide answers about past events which cannot be repeated."

Bacon told reporters that EiG has been motivated by this win to continue their campaign against "historical" or "origins" science. Their next aim is to remove the teaching of ancient history from public schools -- since much of ancient history depends upon scientific analysis of archeological finds.

Forensic scientists from the nation's leading criminology departments are planning to appeal the ruling.

- Ruuters

(thanks to jareth)

Men, Show Us Your True Colors...

2006-05-08T14:02:00.000-04:00

A recent discussion thread on Table Talk (the intracampus discussion forum at my seminary) involved the gender-appropriateness of certain colors. While many of the more rational participants noted that the color of one's shirt does not matter, an extreme and paranoid minority stood firmly behind what they believed to be culturally-inherent values and parameters for gender and color. One bold individual even called the wearing of pink by males something to the effect of the "intentional feminizing" of the American male and the deconstruction of social gender taboos.

In response, the powers-that-be in the seminary responded, siding (not surprisingly) with the radical, conservative element. Here is the official press release:

May 8, 2006
Contact: Joe Manly, Director of Color Communications
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Dear Asbury Community

It has come to our attention that there has been some severe color confusion on campus. Men of Asbury, please know that we are well aware that this situation and working hard to come up with a creative and authoritative solution to the problem.

Beginning next month, we will be installing someone in the position of Color Enforcement Officer. The main responsibility of this officer will be to maintain the approved status color quo. Demerits will be handed out for wearing anything other than your approved gender color. Men should be properly attired in Blue. The darker the shading the better. Anything below Royal Blue will be penalized. The wearing of any pastels, purples or pinks could result in immediate dismissal from ATS. Please also be aware that any signs of originality in dress could result in a formal hearing before the CEMT (Color Equals Manliness Tribunal).

We are still accepting applications for the position. The position requires extreme masculinity and intense insecurity. A degree of paranoia is preferred. A former or current Boy Scout would be ideal since they are known for their manliness. Please direct all application to the HuMAN Resources office.

Asbury will also be adhering to a strict enforcement of their new Ethos Statement regarding color schemes. All students will be required to sign and abide by the Color Ethos statement or their sexuality will be questioned. This new policy is to enforce the idea that ATS will not succumb to postmodern cultural destructivism and all its evils. Please see the approved color chart that is listed below. Thank you for your cooperation in making Asbury Seminary a confusion free zone with regards to color schemes. We are striving towards holiness and color clarity here on earth.

Approved Man Colors - Blue, Dark Blue, Midnight Blue, Black, Brown, Tan and Camouflage.

Approved Woman Colors - Pink

Thank you again for your cooperation!

IE is Back...Kind of...

2006-05-02T12:36:00.000-04:00

Well, I can't say I'm entirely happy about this. After all, I have enjoyed vilifying Internet Explorer's ineptitude as expressed in all versions from 7.0 backward.

However, IE has recently released a new beta version of IE 7 (Beta 2). I downloaded it last night. Compared to Firefox, it is quite good (and, in the words of Albus Dumbledore, "that is saying something"). It has tabbed browsing (finally!), an automatic screen adjust on printing text, and it is super-fast. Faster, in fact, than Firefox's most recent update :(.

I am still not entirely happy with the way it handles a lot of the web language. Perhaps I am just an inept programmer (which is the most likely explanation), but IE 7 Beta 2 still won't properly interpret some of the commands that work flawlessly in Firefox, Safari and Opera.

Nonetheless, IE 7 Beta 2 is certainly worth checking out. While it will not handle all of the features of this website, it is at least able to quasi-properly display all of the design elements (such as transparency), so I can't continue on my quest to destroy all things IE--at least not yet. Perhaps the full release will suck.

Get IE 7 Beta 2 here.

Calvinism and Open Theism, Part I

2006-04-25T13:57:00.000-04:00

“The God who determines everything is the God who determines nothing.”

These were the words I posted in response to a Reformed member of a discussion board to which I belong. The statement was in response to one of the infinite number of similar threads devoted to discussing issues of predestination, foreknowledge, freedom of human will, etc.

Almost instantly, I was bombarded with the predictable host of “flames,” some saying I was obtuse, others saying I was a “troll” seeking to undermine Calvinism at any cost, and even the obligatory accusation of Pelagianism. One thoughtful individual (a Calvinist, no less!), actually asked me what I meant. I went on to explain that I believed that open theism (a theology particularly despised by the Reformed club) was the natural by-product of a rabid Calvinism. Flabbergasted by my assertion, this individual challenged me to explain.

In the following, I will seek to outline what I believe to be direct connections between Calvinism and the rise of Open Theism theology. It is my contention that instead of conceiving of the two in opposition to one another, it is more appropriate to conclude that open theism is actually the legitimate heir of Calvinistic theology, the logical conclusion of the theological and philosophical tenants established in the Reformed method.

Laying a Foundation

I. Calvinism

Calvinism is built upon the dual foundation of foreknowledge and foreordination. The Westminster Confession of faith clearly expresses the relationship:

“3/I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass...” 1

The words “whatsoever comes to pass” definitely and exhaustively communicates that absolutely nothing occurs apart from the divin e will. However, the divine will is not simply permissive, in that it allows things to come to pass; rather, the divine will, according to the Confession, actively ordains that which occurs in accordance with the divine will.

Moreover, the efficacy of that which God ordains is rooted in the infallibility of the foreknowledge of God. Again, the Confession:

“5/I. God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least,by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.” 2

Therefore, God does not merely foreordain that which occurs, but rather does so upon the basis of the eternal foreknowledge that that which God foreordains will necessarily and infallibly come to pass. In other words, God can ordain history with complete confidence, for God has already experienced the fulfilment of that which God purposes from eternity to ordain.

II. Open Theism

Unlike Calvinism, open theism denies that all which occurs is definitively actuated on account of the application of the foreordaining and foreknowing will of God. Rather, the future is very much an open reality, coming into existence based upon the choice of free moral agents. Gregory Boyd, a well-known open theist theologian, describes this as follows:

"Much of it [the future], open theists will concede, is settled ahead of time, either by God's predestining will or by existing earthly causes, but it is not exhaustively settled ahead of time. To whatever degree the future is yet open to be decided by free agents, it is unsettled." 3

Here, Boyd agrees that some things may, perhaps, be predestined on the basis of the natural constitution of the world through divine, creative activity (i.e., it is predestined that humans will have lungs because of the environment in which they live). However, that which will occur if, say, one eats chocolate ice cream as opposed to vanilla, buys a house in Queens as opposed to one in the Bronx, or kills Hitler in 1932 is understood by open theists to be very much “open” and indeterminate.

This does not mean that God lacks omniscience. Rather, as the future does not exist 4 (for humans or God), it cannot be known and can not, therefore, accurately be a part of divine (or human, for that matter) knowledge.

III. Conclusion

The above has been an admittedly brief and incomplete description of the various and infinite nuances which are inherent to each particular theological programme. However, as I believe I have sufficiently illustrated above, there is a definite tension which exists between the two paradigms. While many will claim that the difference exists in relation to the valuation of nature of the human will, such misses the larger incongruity between the two theologies. Rather than anthropocentric, the greater issue of disagreement is that of the nature of God in relationship to the created order.

Calvinism begins from the supposition that because God is sovereign, God as creator must also infallibly ordain that which occurs in creation. To imagine that a single event could occur apart from the ordering of the divine will, within Reformed theology, is tantamount to denying the sovereignty of God. In the Calvinist’s mind, the precise ordering of all that occurs per the preordaining will of God is not only necessary because of God’s nature, but actually serves to maximally glorify God.

Unlike Calvinism, instead of proceeding from the point of God’s sovereignty, open theism rather emphasizes the creative work of God in the universe, painting a picture of a God who creates in order that creation can itself “create.” To the open theist, “risk” and “freedom” within the created order do not deny the sovereignty of God; rather, the fact that creation is free to be creation is a part of the divine will, regardless of the consequences of the precise course that is pursued.

The Problem of Sin and Evil

Among the range of critiques leveled at the Calvinistic view of God’s sovereign determination of all that occurs, chief among these has been the question of the origin and existence of evil. That is, if God not only creates all that exists, but moreover determines all that exists in its multifarious movements, it is difficult to conceive of how God cannot be understood to be the author and, more shockingly, the sustainer and director of evil.

To resolve this glaring incongruity, many Reformed thinkers appeal to Augustine, the fourth century “doctor” of the Church. Consider his words in the following:

“…God does well even in the permission of what is evil…Although, therefore, evil, in so far as it is evil, is not a good, yet the fact that evil as well as good exists, is a good. For if it were not a good that evil exists, its existence would not be permitted by the omnipotent God…” 5

Clearly, Augustine argues that the very existence of evil 6 is good, not because evil in itself is good, but rather because of the simple fact that God permits it to exist, for God, surely, would not allow the existence of that which is not good. 7

However, Augustine takes his logic only so far. Rather than following through to locating the precise mechanism of origin in the work and will of God, Augustine hesitates, refusing to locate the causal nexus beyond the pride of the will. But how can a will, created good, become perverted if not enticed to become so by the direction of the sovereign God? Augustine, at this point, declines to inquire further, noting:
“Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being – this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections – causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient – is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence . . .” 8

As seen, Augustine is ambivalent about the causal mechanism of the existence of evil, and dissolves the conversation before its logical conclusion in order to maintain the goodness of God. Reformed theology, on the other hand, goes well beyond Augustine, pressing the existence of evil to its logical conclusion. Consider the words of the Confession, again:

“The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends...” 9

Consistent with what has already been quoted from the Confession, this article clearly expresses the Calvinistic belief that all things that occur–even ordination of sin and evil–come to pass by the express will of God. Moreover, it is not as if these occur simply by permission of the divine will; rather, they are necessarily directed by the will of God toward “holy ends.” Therefore, if God does truly “ordain whatsoever comes to pass” and that this extends “even to the first fall, and all other sins,” there is no other conclusion that one can reach but that God is originator of sin. In this way, Reformed thinking logically moves beyond Augustine’s hesitancy and locates the origin and direction of sin in the divine will itself.

To be sure, most Reformed thinkers deny such a conclusion. The Confession, for example, anticipates the accusation and notes,

“...yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” 10

In this sense, the Confession wishes to maintain a tension between the origination of sin and the effectual ordering of creation by God. However, the Confession does not go on to explicate exactly how this tension can be honestly maintained. After all, if it is by God’s decree that all things–good and evil–come to pass, from where comes the “sinfulness of creature” except from the predestining will of God? What evil principle can there which exists within the human person that is not there by God’s design?

Coming to terms with the relentlessness of this logical deduction, many Reformed thinkers attempt to circumvent the prickly issue of God as originator or sin by distracting from the conclusion by raising other questions. For example, A.W. Pink, one of the most prolific Reformed writers of the last century, answers the question of whether God is the author of sin in the following:

“Then is God the Author of Sin? We would have to ask, in turn, What is meant by "Author"? Plainly it was God's will that sin should enter this world otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens save as God has eternally decreed.” 11

Instead of engaging the question directly, Pink simply raises another question. Knowing that the inevitable answer must be that God is the author of sin, Pink backs down from the question entirely, retreating into a propositional affirmation of the sovereignty of God. Although he attempts to find respite in the Augustinian affirmation of the place of evil within the goodness of God’s eternal purpose, Pink runs aground on the rock of his presupposition of the absoluteness of the predetermining will of God.

In a similar way, Piper circumvents the natural conclusion of the Reformed position, claiming, simply, that

“...we are told nothing [in Scripture] about how the first actual sin of the universe occurred. And to me it is a great Mystery why any angelic being in the presence of God should ever cease to delight in God and instead seek joy in his own self-esteem. The ultimate origin of sin is shrouded in the darkness of eternity past.” 12

By employing the language of “eternity past,” it is clear that Piper is alluding to the primordial, eternal decrees of God by which Calvinists believe all events to be ordered. However, recognizing the inevitable and logical conclusion of the Reformed position, Piper, like Pink, retreats into the sovereignty of God (“eternity past”), rectifying the origin of sin in the “darkness” (or mystery) of God’s sovereign relationship to that which God has created.

The Logical Move to Open Theism

The 17th, 18th and 19th centuries of human history were the breeding ground for the development of the Calvinistic approach to reconciling the problem of theodicy. Consequently, these were also centuries of great optimism and advancement in the human race in terms of technology, nation-building, human knowledge, etc. The Renaissance and Enlightenment opened up the human mind from its lethargy during the Dark Ages. Suddenly, an entire universe of knowledge was available to be explored. Concomitantly, the rise of scientific methodology provided a framework through which human knowledge could be categorized, examined, critiqued, and systematically built upon. This context of progress and advancement created a great spirit of pride and expectation in the human spirit and markedly characterized the thought and life of Continental Europe. Within this period of great growth and excitement in the future of human progress, the Calvinistic conception of determinism and theodicy must have been fairly easy to maintain. After all, was not the “greater good” of which Augustine had spoken being accomplished in history? Sure, there were setbacks and here and there, and wars and tragedies still continued to occur. However, on the whole, the eschatological future of the human race seemed quite bright, and the existence of sinfulness and evil were characterized as “growing pains,” the necessary gauntlet through which humanity would have to pass before realizing its ultimate deification.

Nonetheless, the turn of the new century brought about a swift disillusionment. Within the first half of the century, all the major nations of the world had been engulfed in two world wars that redefined the very nature and horror of war. The gas chambers of Aushwitz revealed the utter hatred that “improved” scientific humanity was still capable of toward itself, and the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki quickly redrew the lines for the potential of humanity to destroy itself instantly.

Not surprisingly, in the fallout of these disasters, the perennial question of theodicy was again raised. However, this time it was magnified to a degree never before imagined possible. Classical theodicy’s fell apart instantly: How could a good God eternally ordain the horrors of the German prison camps, the Soviet gulags, and the incineration of hundreds of thousands in the fires of the A-bomb? The suggestion that this could somehow be part of a “grander” plan for good was utterly and vitriolically rejected, for what good could possibly come from the brutal and violent deaths of the millions across dozens of nations through two world-engulfing wars? The answer, affirmatively and without hesitation, was “none.”

Many contemporary writers have seized upon the conceptual difficulties of classical theodicies and have severely critiqued them, showing them to be entirely inadequate to address the existential problem of human suffering.

For example, Charles Hartshorne, in his book, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes, attacks the classical Calvinistic conception of God’s predetermining relationship to creation. In Hartshorne’s thinking, the traditional discussion of God’s eternal, determining will has led to nothing but a picture of God as cosmic despot, 13 sovereignly determining every possible thing that occurs, eliminating the potential for human freedom. However, if this is truly how God is related to the world, there is no way, in Hartshorne’s thinking, to avoid the implication that God, alone, is the source of evil in the world. Nelson Pike notes similar conceptual problems with the concept of God’s all-determining will, but pushes the rhetoric farther, noting that,

“If God alone has power, then he alone is responsible [for evil]. Given that someone in the world is to be blamed, [God] is really the only one it could be.” 14

In light of critiques listed above, theologians who wrestled with this problem and were themselves proponents of the “classical” theodicies of Calvinistic flavor needed a way out of the conceptual absurdity of their position in light of the disillusionment of the post-Enlightenment optimism. The answer, to many, came in the form of open theism.

In open theism theodicy, the goodness of God is more easily preserved for the phenomological discussion of “event” in reality is no longer based upon the eternal, determining decrees of God. Rather, God is understood to have infused the Creation with a creativity and freedom that is real, and not merely the façade of an underlying predestined will. In this sense, human creatures are truly free to choose moral actions that are within their ability to actuate. However, God’s sovereignty is concomitantly preserved, for the very freedom of human choice is based upon the divine will coming to pass within the created order.

Sanders, in describing this dynamic, offers the following description of the open theism conception of human freedom and theodicy:

"God, in grace, grants humans significant freedom to cooperate with or work against God's will for their lives, and he enters into dynamic, give and take relationships with us....God takes risks in this give-and-take relationship…” 15

As mentioned, such a perspective provided a “way out” for classical theodicies. While the horrors exacted by Hitler upon the Jews, within the constructs of classical theodicies, was itself directed by the will of God for the fulfillment of a greater good, the open theism argument rejects such determinism. Rather, the horrors perpetuated by Hitler are very much Hitler’s own decisions; therefore, the moral responsibility is also squarely laid upon his shoulders. Moreover, to those that would criticize the God of open theism for neglecting to prevent Hitler from acting in such a way, the response is that such horror and evil is the potential price of God’s good will in creation to allow for the freedom of human will and decision.

----------------------------

1. Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter III, Article I. http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html

2. Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter V, Article I. http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html

3. Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2001), p. 15.

4. It should be noted that not all open theists believe that God does not know the future. Rather, some envision that God fully knows the future, yet limits divine knowledge concerning the future, so as to allow human freedom.

5. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.ii.xcviii.html?bcb=0.

6. It must be noted that Augustine does not necessarily view evil as a “thing” which has ontological existence unto itself. Rather, evil, to Augustine, is the perversion of good. Therefore, it cannot be a thing “created” by God, and therefore, God’s goodness is preserved even in the face of the existence of the perversion of good.

7. For Augustine, the “goodness” of creation was entirely reflective of God’s perfection. To deny that a part of creation was good would, for Augustine, be tantamount to denying the perfection of God.

8. Augustine, City of God, Book 7, Chapter 7 http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ124.HTM#IV.%20WHAT%20CAUSED%20THE%20FALLEN%20ANGELS%20AND%20THE%20FIRST

9. Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter V, Article IV.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html

10. Ibid.

11. A. W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God. http://www.reformed.org/books/pink/pink_sov_08.html

12. John Piper, “The Emergence of Sin and Misery,” http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper81/101181m.htm

13. Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and other Theological Mistakes (Albany: State
University of New York, 1984), 12.

14. Nelson Pike, “Over-Power and God’s Responsibility for Sin.” In The Existence & Nature of God. Studies in the Philosophy of Religion. No. 3. Ed. Alfred J. Freddoso. Norte Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983. 11-35, 12.

15. From John Sanders, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Intervarsity Press, 1994).

T-REX Under Siege Day 1

2006-04-18T15:08:00.000-04:00

The battle is on to rewrite history and deprive us of our cherished beliefs regarding the infamous T-Rex. Don't let the liberal media deceive our children any more. Arm yourself with the sword of knowledge and the sheild of rhetoric.

Read all about thi s scandal of Jurasic proportions here: http://www.xanga.com/forestfroggr/473990764/taking-it-back.html